Can people build monuments to terrorists in private land?

There was a terrorist group in my country belong to a minority ethnicity and it was defeated long ago, but that minority still builds monuments to that terrorist group on their private backyards and no one bothers to remove them, I suppose it’s mostly due to avoiding interethnic violence, as opposed to not wanting to respect the law, but still…is it legal to build monuments like that even on private property?

A few years ago a monument was actually built on public land, in a center of a smaller town and dozens of special unit policemen removed it after media pressed them to do it, so at least on public land it is not allowed, but the problem with this private backyard properties monuments is that they build a monument in front of a house, or on a empty land plot and so on, so even though it’s private land, everyone can see it, it looks public and usually there’s no fences, so anyone can come and pay respects or whatever.

Would America, UK, France,etc. allow people to have ISIS monuments in their yards for everyone to come and pay respects to?

In the USA yes, you could. The government cannot suppress speech. Local government might try to get around it by building code.

If you live in an area that is governed by a private Homeowners Association they can ban such things but I doubt that they can selectively ban.

The term “public land” has a very different definition than it does in Europe. The land you are speaking of is still owned, just by the city or state-level equivalent, and not a private individual.

For America. specifically - well, there doesn’t seem to a problem with other private monuments to traitors and other enemies of the state, so objecting to ISIS monuments would be a little hypocritical.

Then again, America also has terrorist memorials on public land, so…

I wouldn’t consider that terrorism at all, it was a civil war and both sides were American, there was a civil war in my country as well between royalists and communists and no one today considers the other side terrorist, it’s a whole different story when a foreign ethnic group organizes actual terrorist attacks during peace times against your country, kidnappings, attacks on police and so on in a UN recognized country like ISIS does for example.

You don’t consider the early 20thC KKK a terrorist organisation? Stone Mountain isn’t just a Confederate monument.

ISIS has plenty of Western-born members.

Not that I agree it’s fundamentally different, mind you.

In the US, of course. Assuming it’s a safe structure that meets the local building codes.

Yep. It is also a highly popular entertainment venue.

“One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter.”

That theme park website’s pictures doesn’t seem to really … uh, match Georgia’s demographics, IYKWIM. Not really making a great case there…

In america the main restraint against such monuments being erected used to be that you would become a pariah in your neighborhood - which is why in areas where your neighbors are like-minded there was no restraint at all and confederate flags flew proudly. Nowadays people are less concerned about their neighbors disliking them as long as their internet group lauds them, so all bets are off.

Sigh, you really need to move beyond trite sound bites, Mr. Dibble. The demographics of Georgia are as follows:
59.7% White American (55.9% Non-Hispanic White, 3.8% White Hispanic),
30.5% Black or African American
0.3% American Indian and Alaska Native
3.2% Asian American
0.1% Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander
4.0% from Some Other Race (including Hispanics)
2.1% Multiracial American (including Hispanics)
8.8% Hispanics and Latinos of any race.

From here:

So, from a statewide demographic of 30% black (and that is what you are alluding to) to a visitor count of “many, perhaps most” of the park visitors being black, I’d say your allusions are dead wrong. I live within 10 miles of the park and go there several times each year. I can vouch for the AJC article that the demographics of the park pretty closely match those of the surrounding area (shock! people nearby use the park!). It has a history, for sure, but the vast majority of locals have gotten past that and see it for what it is - history. Few, outside of you, consider the park having anything to do with terrorists. In fact, on the rare occasion when racists have gotten the urge to “rally” at the park, counter protestors (of all colors) have on every occasion outnumbered them by a significant margin.

Don’t try to erase the bad parts the past. Use it to teach others why it was wrong and how to avoid repeating the same mistakes.

This statue is on private land but can be seen from interstate 65. It is currently vandalized with a coat of pink paint.

You can *not *tell that from the images on their website, is what I said.

consider the Nathan Bedford Forrest monument in Nashville:


It’s not required, but it’s entirely appropriate that the statue is spectacularly ugly:

That’s a bit disingenuous. The ellipsis, the “um” and the IYKWIM inferred a whole lot more than what you “said”. And a link to a random event on the websiteseems to show plenty of diversity.

Back to the OP - In the US, on private land, one can build pretty much whatever they want so long as applicable zoning and permitting requirements are met.

No, it didn’t.

It implied it. Based on the pics I saw -in the restaurant and camping sections.

Happy to be proven wrong, though. Good that people are ignoring the history of the site.

General Curtis LeMay is still considered a hero in USA. American generals who gave orders to bomb civilians in Air War on Japan 1945, Korean War 1950-1953, and Vietnam War 1965-1973 are still considered heroes.

US Supreme Court generally uses broad definition of Free Speech.

Offensive Art may bring Infamy and thus a good income.

Most people don’t consider him at all, having never heard of him. And those who have have differing opinions based on politics.