Soldier's Uniform Hangs From Noose In Front Of Home

[-Cp]

http://www.thekcrachannel.com/news/4180042/detail.html


SACRAMENTO, Calif. -- Nestled in a quiet Sacramento neighborhood is a very loud political statement that is testing the very foundation of the right to free speech.


Hanging from a house in Land Park, a soldier's uniform in a noose dangles from a rooftop. The words "your tax dollars at work" are scrolled across the chest.

In a community full of patriotism, this view of the war in Iraq has not gone unnoticed.

"I think it's the ultimate sign of disrespect. We have troops dying for us," Land Park resident Mark Cohen said.

"(I'm) annoyed and disgusted. I think if this is the way someone feels they can find a better way to vent their opinions," Land Park resident Pete Miles said.

The homeowners behind the controversy are Steve and Virginia Pearcy. They released a statement saying, "There will always be people who are offended by political speech, and the most important forum of all ... is one's own residence. The First Amendment is meaningless unless dissent is allowed."

Some neighbors agree.

"Even if you don't agree with it, he has the right to state his opinion. I don't find it offensive at all," Land Park resident Cece Williams said.

 

[5stringJeff]

Disgusting... frankly, I'd like to have a "free speech" rally on their front lawn.

 

[dmp]

I'd definately lead a covert op against their place of residence.

 

[OCA]

Anybody want to go with me? I spent almost all of my formulative years in Sacramento and know Land Park like the back of my hand. We can be on these people's front yard in less than 24 hrs.

 

[CivilLiberty]

I'd definately lead a covert op against their place of residence.

Oh yea, perform an act of terrorism against a constitutionally protected act of free expression.

Do I disagree with the message? Yes. But they have an absolute RIGHT to their statement. You do NOT have any right AT ALL to perform an act of terror against them.

Speech = Right

Terrorist Act = NOT A RIGHT.


In the same way, OCA has the right to state his bigoted and homocontemnoist views. I disagree with OCA in the extreme. But I would SHOOT SOMEONE IN THE HEAD if they were attempting to quell his speech rights with a violent act.


Regards,


Andy

 

[dilloduck]

Oh yea, perform an act of terrorism against a constitutionally protected act of free expression.

Do I disagree with the message? Yes. But they have an absolute RIGHT to their statement. You do NOT have any right AT ALL to perform an act of terror against them.

Speech = Right

Terrorist Act = NOT A RIGHT.


In the same way, OCA has the right to state his bigoted and racist views. I disagree with OCA in the extreme. But I would SHOOT SOMEONE IN THE HEAD if they were attempting to quell his speech rights with a violent act.


Regards,


Andy

ya know seeing something like that might make me so crazy that I just couldn't help myself--easy enough to prove these days

 

[dmp]

Oh yea, perform an act of terrorism against a constitutionally protected act of free expression.

Do I disagree with the message? Yes. But they have an absolute RIGHT to their statement. You do NOT have any right AT ALL to perform an act of terror against them.

Speech = Right

Terrorist Act = NOT A RIGHT.


In the same way, OCA has the right to state his bigoted and racist views. I disagree with OCA in the extreme. But I would SHOOT SOMEONE IN THE HEAD if they were attempting to quell his speech rights with a violent act.


Regards,


Andy

You're being a retard. Covert means 'secret' or 'hidden'. You equate things done in secret with Terrorism? Geesh..Mormons are terrorists to you? My brief to the CG of I Corps must be a meeting of terrorists too.

Do you see the IRONY In your statement? You'd SHOOT somebody because they were doing an act of violence. Wow. You're a winner, eh? (that's sarcasm, btw)

 

[Zhukov]

Hanging from a house in Land Park, a soldier's uniform in a noose dangles from a rooftop. The words "your tax dollars at work" are scrolled across the chest.

I don't get it. What exactly is that supposed to mean?

Well, to be honest I've got a good idea, but they need to work on their anti-establishment protest imagery I think, because what they've done doesn't really make much sense.

 

[dilloduck]

I don't get it. What exactly is that supposed to mean?

Well, to be honest I've got a good idea, but they need to work on their anti-establishment protest imagery I think, because what they've done doesn't really make much sense.

Maybe they are bragging that they have a GI uniform thats' being unused and they are holding it hostage ,thus wasting tax money?

(Actually it's free speech being used to incite an angry response.)

 

[fuzzykitten99]

Anybody want to go with me? I spent almost all of my formulative years in Sacramento and know Land Park like the back of my hand. We can be on these people's front yard in less than 24 hrs.

I WILL!!!. My hubby has 2 paintball guns that can do some damage 9when turned up to full velocity) to their windows and cars...

 

[OCA]

In the same way, OCA has the right to state his bigoted and racist views.

ROTFLMFAO! You need to research my posts on racism in here pal.

"open mouth insert foot there Civil"

You have no clue as to what you're talking about and I will be expecting a public apology on here after your research... you pompous ass.

The use of the words bigot and racist so quick in a conversation are the tactics of the weakminded.

Go research now...your continued membership here depends on it.

 

[freeandfun1]

Oh yea, perform an act of terrorism against a constitutionally protected act of free expression.

Do I disagree with the message? Yes. But they have an absolute RIGHT to their statement. You do NOT have any right AT ALL to perform an act of terror against them.

Speech = Right

Terrorist Act = NOT A RIGHT.


In the same way, OCA has the right to state his bigoted and racist views. I disagree with OCA in the extreme. But I would SHOOT SOMEONE IN THE HEAD if they were attempting to quell his speech rights with a violent act.


Regards,


Andy

I would bet that if it were a male mannequin in a dress and labeled "queer" on it, you would support it being forcefully taken under because it would be considered "hate speech" and "offensive". Tell my I am wrong.

As far as I am concerned, they are advocating the "lynching" of soldiers with that display. Otherwise, why don't they have a bloody uniform with holes in it and fake blood simulating a shot up soldier?

 

[OCA]

I WILL!!!. My hubby has 2 paintball guns that can do some damage 9when turned up to full velocity) to their windows and cars...

Well I wasn't exactly meaning any bodily or property damage just that I liked to get this couple out on the lawn in a heated debate in front of their neighbors. This is sort of a pricey, older money type area they live in, mostly Demos if I had to place a bet but older FDR Demos, not these pansy ass socialist Demos that are in control nowadays. I'm betting the neighbors aren't real happy with this.

 

[CivilLiberty]

I would bet that if it were a male mannequin in a dress and labeled "queer" on it, you would support it being forcefully taken under because it would be considered "hate speech" and "offensive". Tell my I am wrong.

Yes, you're wrong. I'd support that as free expression, absolutely.


A

 

[freeandfun1]

Yes, you're wrong. I'd support that as free expression, absolutely.


A

Okay, I believe you. But you and I both know that there are many on the left that would hold that double standard I referred to. Including, I bet, those that have posted this uniform.

 

[CivilLiberty]

You have no clue as to what you're talking about and I will be expecting a public apology on here after your research... you pompous ass.
The use of the words bigot and racist so quick in a conversation are the tactics of the weakminded.
Go research now...your continued membership here depends on it.

Okey Dokley. Aside from the proclamation that you are the "Proud member of the master race" Here are some other direct quotes from some of your posts:

Your a Jew and I would classify you in the same derogatory class as ******.

And nothing can better represent Jews than greasy hair locks and siphoning off the lifeblood of America. Thanks for making me see the light.

This, coupled with the master race comments, certainly could cause one to think "racist". But I realized this was incorrect when I found a few comments like this:

You don't understand that from your writings you are nothing more than a racist pig. Its evident to everybody else here for the simple fact that you use terms such as "garbage" "animals" "minorities are dangerous" you didn't say some but imply all. You're quickly losing your credibility here as most of us believe you don't have the critical thinking gene needed to get past color.

Obviously (the Jew comments aside, which may have been misinterpreted due to context), you're not a racist - you are, however, something of a conundrum.

For that misinterpretation and mischaracterization, I do apologize.

The term "bigot" still holds however as that term does not relate to race, and the other term that I should have used would be "homocontemno". (Actually, homophobe is incorrect in many cases as it means fear - but what I get from you is hate).

I applaud your support for "nurture" rather than genetics relating to opportunity in the context of race. Yet I also find it fascinating your hatred and vitriol toward homosexuals.

Working in the entertainment industry I know many many persons with alternative lifestyles. I can only categorize your hatred as baseless and prejudiced.


I have edited my post to correct the error. Again, my apologies.



Best Regards,


Andy

 

[CivilLiberty]

Okay, I believe you. But you and I both know that there are many on the left that would hold that double standard I referred to. Including, I bet, those that have posted this uniform.

Perhaps, but "they" are as wrong as those who exceed "speech" and act out of violence.



Regards,

Andy

 

[Yurt]

The quotes below are from various sources in this thread. As it is an early thread, I honestly did not want to go back and cite every source.

Oh yea, perform an act of terrorism against a constitutionally protected act of free expression.

Do I disagree with the message? Yes. But they have an absolute RIGHT to their statement. You do NOT have any right AT ALL to perform an act of terror against them.

A,

Freedom of speech is NOT an "absolute" right. Freedom of speech is a constitutional right. I think what you mean by "absolute" is, fundamental. It is important that we all understand that speech as a whole is not is fundamentally protected. There are categories and rules to be follwed.

ya know seeing something like that might make me so crazy that I just couldn't help myself--easy enough to prove these days

For example: the above quote is exactly why this might not be "free speech." Free speech does not mean the right to incite violence, simply because you have the right to speak. This person's opinion, right or wrong, is not the standard. The standard is, whether or not it incites violence. Here, a court of law would have to determine this. My guess, flag burning ok, so very liberal courts, for they burn the very symbol of the country they live in, so it might fly.

(Actually it's free speech being used to incite an angry response.)

Exactly.

As far as I am concerned, they are advocating the "lynching" of soldiers with that display. Otherwise, why don't they have a bloody uniform with holes in it and fake blood simulating a shot up soldier?

Again, a very reasonable interpretation of this "symbolic" speech. Yes, words were used, however, the main thrust of this "speech" is the uniform hanging from their roof, for all too see. This is clearly the message, the latter about taxes is merely incidental.

Advertisers, may own the land they advertise on, however, they can, with impunity, advertise whatever they like. Granted, commercial speech has a slightly different standard, nonetheless, it would not be a stretch for someone to hold this as such. They may lose, as these people are not making this speech for profit, nonetheless, I believe the courts should recognize a boundary other than merely profit for commercial speech (especially as this symbolic act of free speech is now spread across the country).



Unfortunately, however, in some regards fortunate (which is a debate entirely of its merit), as of now there is no law against what these people are doing (in that their is no police to take them immediatly away). Until and unless a court of law considers this; any of the above excpeptions to freedom of speech are the only standard. This again, is why freedom of speech is not absolute. IMHO, this could turn into something like flag burning, where the courts got involved and made their decision.

Personally, this will never equal flag burning. A flag is a symbol. As much as I dislike someone burning the flag, it is but a symbol of a country, in the eyes of the law. In all reality, it just a symbol of our country, of which you are allowed to protest against.

However, if the courts, make this soldiers uniform a symbol like the flag, I will hang my head in shame, for the law, has failed us.

Yes, the flag represents this Nation. As much as I disagree with the legality of burning a flag, it is the law. This hanging of a soldier’s uniform is far more personal than the flag. For the flag can fall (when improperly handled) and it is destroyed. However, a soldier cannot be likened not flag.


IMHO.

 

[CivilLiberty]

Yurt, your points are well taken, however "commercial" speech is afforded only "minimal" protections. Political speech, on the other hand, is afforded the highest protection.

That display is on private property, and it is clearly political in nature, and it is not remotely in the class of "prohibited" speech which is "speech creating an immediate threat to public safety", further defined as "fighting words", "Inciting a riot", and yelling "fire" in a crowded theater. Or as "obscene" meaning of purely prurient interest.

There is also the issue of "time/place/manner", but such laws must be content neutral.

This is not the issue. What *is* the issue is the willingness by some to perform a "covert op" against the residents of the private property. And I was making certain direct comparisons between "acts" and "speech". To simplify the argument I avoided the minutia that you pointed out.

I will comment on this statement though:

. Freedom of speech is a constitutional right.

No, speech is a fundamental right of man. the constitution does not GRANT us this right, it PROHIBITS the government from TAKING AWAY this right.

A "right" is not something "granted". It simply exists. The *amendments* to our constitution does not grant us rights, it limits the government's powers


Regards,

Andy

 

[CivilLiberty]

I don't get it. What exactly is that supposed to mean?

Well, to be honest I've got a good idea, but they need to work on their anti-establishment protest imagery I think, because what they've done doesn't really make much sense.

When HAS anti-establishment protest imagery made sense???


A