Community is up in arms after neighbor installs giant swastika in front yard

Thats debatable.

 

No, it's not. Smokey this is bowling not nam, there are rules.

I cited them earlier.

Being able to see sections of black concrete from the ground that if viewed from the air form a symbol but from your view from the ground at your property line looks like a black line is not a private nuisance claim.


Bring that frivolous lawsuit, lawyers like me collect attorneys fees off of foolish opposition like you all the time.

 

Ironically, in light of that guy's yard art and his helmet, Das Keyboard makes a mechanical model I'd love to have.

 

Neighborhoods have rules about your lawn grass being too lawn.

rules about leaving trash and cars on the front lawn.

if they can do that, they can ban hate speech on front lawns.

or political expressions in general.

 

If the covenants are there allowing it, sure.

 

This guy looks a little above antifa's pay grade, typically they limit their attacks to 85 year old Jews. They tend to stay away from people who would beat the ever living sh@t out of them.

So I suppose we will have to get our social justice from a different entity. So sad.

 

Homeowner's associations are good for dealing with these type of situations.

 

Have you ever been right on this forum? Because I haven't seen it.

"The public display of Nazi flags is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution which, affirmed by the Supreme Court case Texas v. Johnson, guarantees the right to freedom of speech.[23][24]"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post%E2%80%93World_War_II_legality_of_Nazi_flags

Interesting aside... there's no law against displaying the Nazi flag in Israel.

 

Shocker that a guy who calls himself Soupnazi has no problem with the neighborhood swastika display...

Nobody is attempting to stamp out freedom of speech, just stupidity.... Neither is likely to happen....

I guess I'm glad I live in an HOA controlled community, cause we don't have to put up with this particular form of stupidity...

 

Some people get their panties in wad over the stupidest things. Who cares what the guy did in his own yard?

 

So if I prominently displayed a depiction of Jesus Christ in a speedo a BDSM harness with a rainbow flag in my front yard for all to see you would have to peer into my yard to see it?

It isn't so big you can't make it out from the ground. And is it behind a fence? If not there is no peering through anything.

So having junk cars strewn about my front yard is perfectly okay?

And cooking bacon isn't since some people are offended by the odor?

It's a good thing you aren't emperor of HOAs

But they won't have a clause about offensive art? Lol what?

Don't do many cases on home owner things huh

You won't have to peer into anything to see something in the yard of someone without a fence. You'll have to avert your vision to avoid seeing it. So your language is dishonest.

So if I were to walk down my front drive naked to my property like I wouldn't be committing an any of indecent exposure people that see me would be peeping?

Did you go to the university of cracker Jack to get your legal education?

Assuming the car parked near by isn't 300 feet long the swastika is small enough for it to be depicted without vertical axis being required.

If I were to hold an orgy on my front lawn and make no illegal sound there is no burden on your if you were a neighbor. If you didn't want your children to see it you simply don't peer into the property.

Suggesting someone has to peer into something in plain sight you are being dishonest.

 

Rules against painting swastikas all over seem reasonable.

 

To you. Discriminatory real estate covenants seemed reasonable to many people many decades ago.

Moral relativism?

 

Ilhan Omar approves.

 

Or to any reasonable and prudent person. Which is a clause that does occur in law quite a bit.

If they aren't reasonable to you, don't buy a house in the neighborhood.

 

Again, 'reasonable and prudent' is relative.

 

Not legally speaking.

 

Racially restrictive covenants would have been seen as 'reasonable and prudent' a few decades ago in the 1940s.

Your argument is a fundamentally fallacious one.
It's basically "I am right, because I am obviously right".

 

Their problem

 

Controlled community in this case absolutely equals violation of freedom of speech
Defending his right is not defending his view

 

As long as he isn't wearing a MAGA hat or smirking, it should be fine.

 

Well, THOSE you can do in your yard ....

 

this is a current event not a historical one.

never said anything even close to those words I never use that argument.

I was stating what is codified in law.

 

What did the Nazis ever do to you? Have you ever seen any actual Nazis?

 

Why is this acceptable? = https://www.walmart.com/ip/Hanukkah...=sem&msclkid=07b4d0dc668e1361bb058c277333cc25