I wonder how this guy expects to succeed: will he invalidate all homeowner’s agreements? Will it be legal for me to paint the outside of my house with pictures of nekkid people, to put rusty car sculptures in my yard as commentary on late-industrial society, to play foul-mouthed music over my speakers?
Or does he expect for patriotic expressions to get special treatment under the law that other types of expression don’t get?
Wanker.
Daniel
re foul-mouth music, isn’t that issue alraedy settled? I was under the impression that we can play whatever music we want, so long as it isn’t too loud.
(Sorry, can’t back it up with a cite.)
Trinopus
Trinopus, the issue is whether you can sign an agreement stating, “I won’t play foul-mouthed music 'round these parts” and have the agreement be legally enforceable. Not whetheryou can play such music absent such an agreement.
Daniel
Dumb idea. Maybe he hasn’t called the ACLU? I’m sure they don’t patrol the country and swoop out of the blue like commandos.
Actually, that’s what their black helicopters are for – they borrow them from the UN.
Daniel
In real estate matters the only thing less appealing to me than an HOA is fucking dumbasses who willingly enter into one and then whine and bitch and go to court because they don’t like the rules they willingly signed off on. If you’re willing to let your immediate neighbors have that much direct control over your life, you’ve left the “land of the quasi-free” and entered the “land of the quite a bit less quasi-free”.
This guy sounds just like the 75% of my office who live in HOA’s: they’re the greatest thing since sliced bread and anyone not in them is antisocial loser trailer trash. Until the first time some appointed doddering neighborhood Barney Fife puts a $50 “ticket” on their riding mower because they left it in their drive to go in and use the toilet. Then they’re all full of piss and vinegar. :rolleyes:
The only way I could have any respect for this guys position is if the rules changed after he moved in.
Noooooobody expects the ACLU!
Our chief weapon is a cadre of lawyers… a cadre of lawyers and a cry of rights abuse … a cry of rights abuse and a cadre of lawyers…
Our two weapons are a cry of rights abuse and a cadre of lawyers … and ruthless liberalism…
Our three weapons are a cry of rights abuse, a cadre of lawyers, and ruthless liberalism…
and an almost fanatical devotion to the Constitution…
Our four… no…
Amongst our weapons… Amongst our weaponry…
are such elements as a cry of rights abuse, a cadre of lawyers…
I’ll come in again.
This is the stupidest fucking thing I’ve ever heard, you shit-stained asshole.
[sub]These internet obscenities brought to you courtesy of the ACLU. The ACLU: promoting obscenity since 1921.[/sub]
The ACLU is too busy defending pedophiles and trying to stop elections in California. They can’t be expected to step up to the plate for a decent cause!
You forgot the puppy beatings and nun raping.
I CANNOT believe you 2 (Brutus and Jack Batty! Wanna come up with cites for your bullshit?
::scanning my right wing commando/english /english/right wing commando dictionary::
I believe that **el Brute ** is referring to the ACLU’s defense of the voters of California by suing wrt the recall vote to postpone it (ie not cancel it) until such a time that the antiquated voting machines (like those used in FLORIDA) can be replaced, as the California’s Sec. of State has declared the machines themselves to be well, fucked up or something to that effect. I suspect the other comment was potentially something about the Man/boy/love ass. (NAMBLA)'s rights to publish newsletters or something along those lines (my dictionary got fuzzy on that one)
Jack was merely using hyperbole as a method to point out the idiocy of the prior post.
You are super–neo-ultra2-unsmart.
Y’know, B-dog, I keep waiting for you to surprise me. I’m still waiting.
I CANNOT believe that needed to be explained.
Yep. Certainly in some cases. For example, an attempt at racial uniformity is contrary to public policy in pretty much every jurisdiction. An attempt at uniformity of the ages of the residents is mostly not, though that’s under attack in some areas. In some areas, an attempt at uniformity by banning satellite dishes is against public policy; in other areas it’s OK (though I think federal regs specify that it’s against).
For the record, in 2001 the Florida ACLU lobbied for legislation that would preclude homeowner’s associations from prohibiting members from displaying campaign signs on their property during campaign season (cite). I’m unaware whether the FLACLU would have been OK with a homeowner’s association restriction on a huge campaign sign suspended from a 12-foot pole.
consider the source.
manny you realize, of course, that the two cases (the stance wrt campaign signs and the flagpole issue) have nothing much in common, don’t you? yea, I knew that you did.
issue here is flagpole Pole. not the stars & stripes, much as the right winged nut job on my morning radio show would pretend that it is. a rule the guy apparently had agreed in writing to abide by when he purchased the property.
As for my actually opinion in this matter, I’m glad the ACLU fights for what it fights for, but sometimes I am a little disconcerted by what they don’t fight for – hence my little Monty Python skit up there. Anyone who doesn’t see the ACLU’s liberalism in their agenda is blind.
I would very much like to see the ACLU step up and defend this guy’s right to fly a flag.
Free speech is free speech.
Besides, I hate the very notion of Homeowner’s Association rules. If this guys want’s to fly Old Glory, paint his house in red, white and blue polka dots and put a big-ass sign on his front lawn stating, “United States fucking rules, dude!” then he ought be able to. It’s his property.
Well, he’s the idiot that signed into the Homeowner’s Association, isn’t he?
And if he wants to do that, he shouldn’t have signed the contract promising not to when he bought the house.