Caution-Retards In Area

Heres a link to the story. My question is, are these people breaking any laws by having this sign up?

What laws would they be breaking?

The only think I can think of is if their commuity has enacted some sort of signage restrictions (signs can be no bigger than X square feet or somesuch).

Sounds like grounds for a civil suit to me.

Need another sign: “Asshole, Trailer Trash in Area”.

Definately, but the OP asked about breaking laws. There is an interesting question buried in this absurdity about hate crime laws.

Is the sign meant to harrass and/or terrorize? Is it protected by the first ammendment?

My opinion is that it is meant to harass, but not necessarily terrorize; and since it is posted in the land owned by the neighbor it’s protected by the first ammendment and therefore legal. No crime.

That said, if I lived across the street from the Pernod’s neighbor I’d rip the sign down and put my foot up his ass.

Check that sign again. It does not say

It clearly says

Showcasing your own lack of mental ability is an odd way to go about insulting another’s mental abilities.

I agree with Garfield: Unless there is a sign ordinance in the town, the guy has a right to express his opinion. Note that inoffensive opinions need no protection.

Anyway, it sounds like the child in question is a real disturbance in the neighborhood. Not that that justifies putting up an offensive sign, but if the child in question threw rocks at your child, you might have a little more sympathy for the dude who put up the sign. The fact is that a person with the mind of a 3-year-old should not be running around unsupervised.

Yeah it sounds like they need to be watching him a little better.

There’s always the popular “Slow Children Ahead” sign.

I dunno, seems to me like he’s saying “The Retard is in The Area”, but due to space constraints on the cardboard he had to contract it some. Hence “{The}RETARD’S IN {the} AREA”

Okay, that was all tongue in cheek.

What that guy has done is wrong, it’s certainly not classy and I’m not defending him in any way, shape or form. The kid doesn’t know any better.

However, I do agree with smile4me2222 in that I could see how the guy would get frustrated IF the kid DID throw rocks at his daughter, and he was told they couldn’t prosecute the kid because he’s disabled. But my suggestion for the guy would have been to go after the kid’s parents for not supervising him correctly, not to start putting up signs like that and trying to intimidate the family into compliance. The kid can’t help how he is. His parents, however, can at least try to keep him under control.

But… if the sign is only meant to refer to one person, then the latter version is actually more correct than the former.

…and if you treat it like a typical “Beware of Dog” sign, you’ll have a clearer idea of where to look for the social retard.

That is true. Maybe he should put one of those up and dress it up a bit with a photo and an arrow.

What is really disgusting is that the police seem to be going to great lengths to get this guy in trouble, and not protecting his daughter from the child throwing deadly weapons.
I hope that somebody is teaching Self Defense Training as well as Sensitivity Training.


I believe that was more IMHO. Sorry.


Was it just me, or did it seem like the person who wrote that article wasn’t the shiniest coin in the fountain either.

It’s going to be difficult to convince him to take down the sign when it seems to have been the thing that (apparently) finally lit a fire under the parents and got them to properly supervise the kid:

Therein lies the root of the problem – what’s someone who is mentally comparable to a three-year-old doing roaming the neighborhood unattended?

Are there no laws against public displays of prejudice like this? Would they apply to the handicapped if there were? And could this be taken up in a civil suit?

I can think of no criminal or civil action that would apply to a “public display of prejudice.” In fact, I would think that the First Amendment would protect such expression.

As a previous reply noted, the right to free speech applies particularly to expression that you find offensive. Otherwise, there would be no need to protect expression at all.

I thought the same thing. Maybe Sam Penrod is the shiniest coin in the little fountain that is Nephi, Utah. :wink:

Sign comes down in Nephi: