The Albany Times Union has an intriguing story from another front in the fight for freedom of speech. This front is a front lawn in Queensbury where, back in 2010, the Jasinski family wanted to show their support for Chris Gibson, the Republican candidate for House of Representatives. It seems like you see such signs everywhere in an election season, and while many think them eyesores, they're accepted (however grudgingly) as part of the landscape of a free country. Not so in the Jasinskis' neighborhood. They're members of the Hudson Pointe Homeowners Association, which made a rule before the Jasinskis moved in banning the display of political signs on members' property. The association levied a fine of $5 for each day the Jasinskis kept the Gibson sign on their lawn. It eventually wrote off the fines when the Jasinskis refused to pay, but when the family showed their support for Mitt Romney last year the association started fining them again, even though the Jasinkis placed their signs on what they considered municipal property, where the First Amendment presumably prevails. Again the Jasinskis refused to pay until, with their debt more than $1,500, the association placed a lien on their home.
The association claims that the sign ban is aesthetically motivated by a desire to keep up appearances in the neighborhood. But the Jasinksis note that certain signs (e.g. "For Sale") are allowed while others aren't. They assume that "It's the content they don't like," whether they mean hostility to politics in general or to Republicans in particular. While Republicans are quick to assume bias, the affront to freedom of speech would be the same had the Jasinskis put up Obama signs. A director of the association told the TU reporter that he has to represent the entire neighborhood, including those neighbors who "are not happy" with the Jasinskis' signs. So what if the neighbors overheard the Jasinskis talking politics and took offense? The idea of literally silencing them seems absurd, but so should the idea of what remains essentially a private entity infringing on members' public rights. The associations' rule against political signs is akin to the presumed right of shopping malls to forbid political expression, even (in a notorious local case) to the point of forcing someone to take off a tee-shirt. Political speech is often obnoxious by aesthetic standards, to say the least, but the attitude that simply doesn't want to bothered by the sight of political signs is even more obnoxious in a democratic republic. No private entity, be it a business or an association, should have the power to suppress actual political expression. Politics can be messy and make for clutter on the landscape, but on the other hand, I understand they keep North Korea pretty neat.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
I have to disagree. I'm sure when they moved in, they had to sign an agreement, wherein such a rule would have been listed. If they didn't read the agreement, the family is at fault. If they did read, but disagreed, they should have found a different community to live in.
It is a long established tradition that communities are allowed certain prerogatives regarding "community standards". Would you feel the same if they were posting pornographic pictures to show their opinion on sex? Or should they be allowed to put up signs declaring their hatred of Muslims or intolerance of gays as well?
Apparently they didn't read the fine print, since they claim they didn't know about the restriction until the association started fining them. Meanwhile, self-evidently political speech (at a minimum, election advocacy) should always be an exception to community-standards rules, especially if the community standard in question is nothing but "appearances." Political speech is the apple to all your oranges.
In the case of these political signs, it doesn't truly express an opinion, rather it simply indicates which ideology you blindly follow. Let's face it, these "signs" are nothing more than someone's name - not their platform, not their stand on issues, just a name and perhaps a photo. That isn't really expressing an opinion.
If people wish to be so open about their politics, let eliminate the secret ballot.
Insofar as the "notorious local case", I would ask if the mall allows people to wear t-shirts with other "messages" on them? As long as they enforce their code on EVERYONE, no one has cause to argue. That being the case, stores in the mall should not be allowed to sell such clothes, or should have to post a clearly visible sign stating that the mall does not permit the wearing of such clothing.
6:02: This, too, is a sort of aesthetic judgment. But as far as the secret ballot goes, I've called for doing away with it because a secret ballot means a physical ballot whose inevitably limited space inevitably means that not all candidates for office will be presented equally.
6:09: I believe the usual rule in such cases forbids "controversial" content, but the case that got attention involved a man wearing a Peace shirt in 2003. I don't know of anyone getting hassled for wearing pro-war clothing or regalia of any sort.
I did follow your link and read the article before commenting. My point wasn't so much whether what was on the shirt was controversial, but whether they impose that rule equally, and whether they make customers aware of that rule when selling "offensive" merchandise.
Post a Comment