Just this morning, the TV had the news about the ex-Marine in Jupiter FL, who is being told he cannot fly the flag outside his house! He has taken the town of Jupiter to the FL supreme court-why isn’t the ACLU behind him (oh, I know, they would rather fight for a right to post obscentities on the internet).
So, ACLU, I challeng theee…back up this guy in Florida, and I’ll send you $5.00!:wally
Is this the ex-marine who lives in a neighborhood with a Homeowners association, and flying a flag of any sort was against an agreement he himself signed?
Could you link to the story, please?
Here it is.
Would that be the story discussed in this thread?
Wanker.
The guy has no need for the ACLU. Fox is paying his legal fees, and Jeb Bush is fighting on his side.
Why the fuck would the ACLU waste its time on this crap?
So he can fly the flag all he wants. But that won’t help his situation, which is about money now, not flag-flying.
My “wanker” comment obviously not directed at spooje or Papermache Prince, who snuck posts in. 
So, ralph, lemme get this straight. This guy buys a house, signs a homeowner’s agreement not to fly a flag except from small brackets attached to his house. Knowing what he signed, he deliberately breaks his word (and his written contract) by flying a twelve-foot flag. The courts enforce the contract that he signed.
Your question is, why isn’t the ACLU backing up his right to fraudulently enter into a contract? Or are you wondering why they’re not in the courts claiming that Americans don’t have the right to enter into written, enforceable agreements with one another?
Whichever. The answer is this: the right to fraudulently enter into a contract isn’t one that’s recognized by the ACLU, and the ACLU DOES believe people have the right to enter itno written, enforceable agreements with one another.
Glad to clear that up.
Daniel
Delaying elections and (possibly) canceling my chances of seeing a debate…
The legislature’s ruling that people can fly the flag regardless of homeowner’s rules is actually an abridgement of rights: they’re effectively saying, “You don’t have the right to enter into an agreement in which one party promises not to fly the flag.” If the AcLU wanted to enter this legal battle, they ought to be entering it on the side of the homeowner’s association.
Not that I have any love at all for homeowner’s associations, mind you. But that’s the side whose rights are being violated here.
Daniel
Right. The contract was valid, and the Florida law a transparent political move by the Florida legislature.
Would it surprise you to learn of cases in which the ACLU fought against enforcing written agreements entered into by Americans?
- Rick
We already prohibit contracts which seek to enforce provisions deemed contrary to public policy. I can’t seek performance of a contract for sexual services; I can’t enforce a contract requiring a mother to give up her baby for adoption, even if she previously contracted to do so; I can’t force a person to donate a kidney, even if he signed a contract agreeing to do so.
The difference here, I would suggest, is that many posters don’t see the flying of the flag as a matter of public policy.
However, you’re not the ones to make that call. The judiciary, and overriding them, the legislature in Florida, can make that call.
It seems that now, in Florida, the right to fly a flag may not be abrogated by contract. That’s the law.
- Rick
An attempt at uniformity in a neighborhood is contrary to public policy?
And I believe the law allows for the American flag only, but I could be wrong.
Not at all: written agreements are a right, but there are other rights that may trump the written agreement rights, as you point out well in your next post.
If the Florida legislature has said that anyone can fly any flag they want in their yard, no matter the symbol (US flag upside down, swastika, Confederate flag, Earth flag, piece of cloth on which is spraypainted, “ANARCHY IN TEH USA U FUKING TOOLZ!”), and that nobody can sign a neighborhood agreement against this sort of eyesore, then they’ve got the kind of content-neutral law that I could definitely see the ACLU getting behind.
If not, then I’d be very surprised for the ACLU to get involved.
Daniel
One point of order that seems to be overlooked in this discussion is that the original arguement was not about flying the flag. The homeowners association allows the flag to be flown. The objection originally was taht the televe foot flagpole that he installed was in violation of the legaly binding contract that he signed. Both this discussion and the law passed by the legislature have no bearing on that. He had the right all along to fly the flag as long as it was flown from a wall bracket attached to the house. No infringement of any rights occured.
What about marriage? Can’t you divorce the person if they refuse to perform?
Where the ACLU should be in this is fighting for anyone who wants to fly a flag other than the American flag, regardless of homeowner association rules.
Since the legislature has now made this a legal and political issue, its restriction of this right to fly a flag, but only one specific flag, is a clear violation of the First Amendment right to free speech. What if I want to fly the Greek or Bulgarian or gay pride or “I Like Pie” flag and can’t? My rights are being violated by the legislature dictating what political speech is acceptable and what isn’t.
Too bad the guy’s going to lose his house over this, but he’s not losing it over not being able to fly a flag; he’s losing it because he wants to have a flag pole and can’t. To him I say, hey, if you want to be able to have a flag pole then don’t move into a house where you agree not to have one. The guy entered into a private contract with his homeowner’s association. There’s no constituional principle at stake in that contract dispute so the ACLU has no reason to be involved.
Way to slag the ACLU for no fucking reason, jackass.
There is a strange sort of madness among those who “stand up for their rights.”
Otto:
Go on, brutha.