[Spooky]

A judge has ordered a New Jersey woman to remove four of six pro-Trump banners hanging on her fence because they displayed profanity, including one showing the former president extending two middle fingers over the words 'f*** Biden.'

Municipal Court Judge Gary Bundy ordered Dick - and her mother, Patricia Dilascio who owns the property -  to take down the flags or face a daily fine of $250.

'It is clear from state law and statutes that we cannot simply put up the umbrella of the First Amendment and say everything and anything is protected speech.' the judge added.

Signs that read, 'Don't blame me, I voted for Trump,' and 'Socialism Sucks, Biden Blows,' could remain. 

Roselle Park Mayor Joseph Signorello, a Democrat, told NBC that the major concern lies with where Dick's house is located.

'It's within spitting distance of an elementary school, so it makes it particularly problematic,' Signorello said. 'You can put up political signage whenever you want, but when it's political signage couple with sexual innuendo, offensive gestures, that's where we draw the line.' 

Dick said the messages were her way of showing support for Trump.

"I have until next Thursday to decide. Then they're going to hit us with a $250 a day fine. It could be up to $500 but they're starting off at $250. If I don't take them down it's at the judge's discretion to bump it. And my mom could do 90 days in jail," Dick said.
-
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9802875/amp/New-Jersey-woman-ordered-remove-pro-Trump-anti-Biden-posters-expletives-face-daily-fine.html

I’m a firm believer in Freedom of speech, no matter how vulgar it is. But if she is within a school zone (the article does not clarify if it is) then she shouldnt be putting up cuss words on display for the neighborhood to see.

[mothered]

The signs appear to be within the boundaries of her home.

If so and In terms of freedom of speech, she can do whatever she likes on her private property. If others don't like It, tough luck - that's their problem not hers.

[Accident Man]

Yeah, that is getting reversed on appeal.

[Boudica]

The signs appear to be within the boundaries of her home.

If so and In terms of freedom of speech, she can do whatever she likes on her private property. If others don't like It, tough luck - that's their problem not hers.

Well, the item itself is on the boundary line of her property. It impacts land beyond her property though. It'd be like owning a sprinkler in your garden that drowns your neighbours flowerbed. Sure, the sprinkler itself itself is in their garden, but I suspect a legal argument can be made xD

[mothered]

Well, the item itself is on the boundary line of her property. It impacts land beyond her property though.

It's purely displaying a message, so there's no direct Impact (externally) when It's within the confines of her property. If people don't like It, simply look away.

I honestly dislike my neighbor's banner of his favorite football team (Real Madrid CF) on his back fence, but I can't force him to remove It so as with the above scenario, I choose to Ignore It.

It'd be like owning a sprinkler in your garden that drowns your neighbours flowerbed. Sure, the sprinkler itself itself is in their garden, but I suspect a legal argument can be made xD

I absolutely agree, for the fact that the sprinkler has a direct physical Impact on the neighbor's property, as opposed to being Isolated to Its owner's premises.

[Boudica]

Well, the item itself is on the boundary line of her property. It impacts land beyond her property though.

It's purely displaying a message, so there's no direct Impact (externally) when It's within the confines of her property. If people don't like It, simply look away.

I honestly dislike my neighbor's banner of his favorite football team (Real Madrid CF) on his back fence, but I can't force him to remove It so as with the above scenario, I choose to Ignore It.

It'd be like owning a sprinkler in your garden that drowns your neighbours flowerbed. Sure, the sprinkler itself itself is in their garden, but I suspect a legal argument can be made xD

I absolutely agree, for the fact that the sprinkler has a direct physical Impact on the neighbor's property, as opposed to being Isolated to Its owner's premises.

I agree to an extent. But what if a 6 year old reads that and starts repeating it? I think it's just difficult to balance the "that's their property" vs "is it causing harm to anyone" line. If that was on one of my neighbours back fences, I'd be shocked but wouldn't mind it. I would also choose to ignore it. If it was opposite a school where young kids walk past, I'm not sure that's the same thing.

[mothered]

I agree to an extent. But what if a 6 year old reads that and starts repeating it? I think it's just difficult to balance the "that's their property" vs "is it causing harm to anyone" line. If that was on one of my neighbours back fences, I'd be shocked but wouldn't mind it. I would also choose to ignore it. If it was opposite a school where young kids walk past, I'm not sure that's the same thing.

I understand your point and It's certainly valid, however a 6 year old will not be travelling alone, but rather with their parent and It's their responsibility to look after their child In every way possible. If they see anything (such as the sign) that Impacts on their child, any responsible parent would turn In the opposite direction.

In terms of young children walking past, If they're alone and without supervision, then they're old enough to make their own decisions - take the message on board, or disregard It altogether. Don't get me wrong, I do agree that the signs can have an Impact on anyone, but It's all about "choice" for adults, and parental care for children.

Take the Internet as an example. It's packed with material not suitable for (very) young children, and their parents filter It accordingly. You cannot possibly expect every Inappropriate content be removed. The same principle applies to any physical environment, this topic Included.

[Alex1759]

You know, this would be a good way to make some extra cash. Put up an offensive pro-Trump or anti-Biden sign, get a judgement against you, and start a Gofundme.

[Boudica]

I agree to an extent. But what if a 6 year old reads that and starts repeating it? I think it's just difficult to balance the "that's their property" vs "is it causing harm to anyone" line. If that was on one of my neighbours back fences, I'd be shocked but wouldn't mind it. I would also choose to ignore it. If it was opposite a school where young kids walk past, I'm not sure that's the same thing.

I understand your point and It's certainly valid, however a 6 year old will not be travelling alone, but rather with their parent and It's their responsibility to look after their child In every way possible. If they see anything (such as the sign) that Impacts on their child, any responsible parent would turn In the opposite direction.

In terms of young children walking past, If they're alone and without supervision, then they're old enough to make their own decisions - take the message on board, or disregard It altogether. Don't get me wrong, I do agree that the signs can have an Impact on anyone, but It's all about "choice" for adults, and parental care for children.

Take the Internet as an example. It's packed with material not suitable for (very) young children, and their parents filter It accordingly. You cannot possibly expect every Inappropriate content be removed. The same principle applies to any physical environment, this topic Included.

You've really thought this all out. And I find myself completely agreeing with you. Although, I'd be a liar if I said I wasn't glad this isn't in my neighbourhood, regardless of political affiliation. Then again, it would be a little amusing - almost like a neighbourhood landmark xD

The S once fell of a store called "Shoe Zone" in my town. You can imagine the glee that brought us as teenagers.

[Dismas]

Not classy at all, but that's how freedom of speech works. People can shelter their kids, but they'll see the world for what it is eventually.