PDA

View Full Version : Town continues to try and Block Anti-War signs


Laz
09-03-2006, 01:07 PM
PRAIRIE VILLAGE ORDINANCE | Federal judge blocks enforcement of new law

Anti-war signs can remain

City officials say they will rewrite the law so it will pass constitutional muster.

By KIT WAGAR
The Kansas City Star

Prairie Village protester David Quinly won an across-the-board victory last week in his efforts to tell the world that the U.S. presence in Iraq is wrong.

And Prairie Village officials are learning that regulating signs is trickier than they anticipated.

A federal judge on Thursday issued an injunction blocking the city from enforcing its sign ordinance after ruling that the law appeared to violate the public’s First Amendment rights.

City Attorney Charlie Wetzler said Prairie Village officials never intended to crimp anyone’s rights. He said officials would try to come up with a revised ordinance that addresses the court’s concerns.

“All Prairie Village wants is an ordinance that is constitutional,” Wetzler said. “We want an ordinance that works. It’s difficult when you’re balancing the needs of the city, the customs of the city and free speech.”

The ruling, by U.S. District Judge John Lungstrum, was a victory on all counts for Quinly, whose front-yard political signs ignited the legal dispute.

For more than two years, Quinly had posted signs opposing the war in Iraq in front of his Roe Avenue home when he was cited last September for two signs that were larger than the city ordinance allowed.

“Dubya — End the occupation. Stop murdering the poor in Iraq and help the poor in New Orleans,” the signs said.

Quinly pleaded no contest and was fined $300. He then appealed his conviction to Johnson County District Court, and the city agreed to dismiss the fine.

To address deficiencies in its rules regarding political signs, the city adopted a new ordinance designed to regulate “information signs” that involve free speech, a personal belief or a political party, candidate or issue.

The ordinance, which took effect in July, was based on a model used nationwide, Wetzler said.

Quinly, backed by the American Civil Liberties Union, challenged four aspects of the new rules.

Information signs, according to the rules, cannot be larger than 16 square feet and cannot contain profane or indecent expressions.

They must be durable enough to withstand high winds and cannot be displayed longer than 90 days before they are removed or replaced.

Lungstrum ruled that other signs — such as for-sale signs posted by real estate agents and signs posted at churches and libraries — were treated differently. Consequently, the issue became whether the rules served a compelling public interest.

Prairie Village argued that larger signs create a traffic hazard and that the durability requirement was justified as a way to prevent cheap signs in disrepair from cluttering neighborhoods.

Lungstrum ruled that the regulations achieved none of those purposes because signs not containing political messages were allowed to be larger and were not required to be in a stable condition.

Neither Quinly nor his attorney, John Simpson, could be reached Saturday.

Wetzler said that city officials could come up with new rules within a few weeks.

stevieray
09-03-2006, 01:13 PM
Unfortunately, Freedom of Speech only counts if you are endorsing the message.

Adept Havelock
09-03-2006, 01:44 PM
Unfortunately, Freedom of Speech only counts if you are endorsing the message.

Well that's certainly the perspective of the current administration and many of it's supporters. If you're not endorsing the official GOP message, you shouldn't be allowed to speak. ;)

stevieray
09-03-2006, 01:50 PM
Well that's certainly the perspective of the current administration and many of it's supporters. If you're not endorsing the official GOP message, you shouldn't speak. ;)

edit: didn't see the wink smiley.

Adept Havelock
09-03-2006, 01:53 PM
:rolleyes:

ROFL ROFL ROFL

Hey, you're the one who said it. All I did was agree. It's not my fault you didn't parse your sentence. :p

Laz
09-03-2006, 04:01 PM
laws that endorse ideology or political preference are a BAD,BAD idea.

banyon
09-03-2006, 04:41 PM
Good For Lungstrum.

Maybe this'll help me get over the B+ he gave me in Contracts.

SBK
09-04-2006, 07:17 AM
Idiots. Don't regulate free speech, use it to your advantage.

Have some other group put up signs that question the patriotism of the group that is posting the signs or something.

Regulating free speech is stupid. Using it to get what you want is the way to go!

cowace2
09-04-2006, 10:42 AM
How sad this is. This betrays a lot of principles that I'm sure these "Prairie Village officials" would claim they support.

Bowser
09-04-2006, 12:54 PM
Could the state of Kansas be any more tight assed or red assed than it already is?

Brock
09-04-2006, 01:43 PM
Could the state of Kansas be any more tight assed or red assed than it already is?

Yeah, magically, when you set foot into Missouri or Nebraska or Oklahoma, everybody's all smiles. :rolleyes:

Bowser
09-04-2006, 11:29 PM
Yeah, magically, when you set foot into Missouri or Nebraska or Oklahoma, everybody's all smiles. :rolleyes:

We just frown a whole lot less. And we know how to ****ing drive, too.

WilliamTheIrish
09-05-2006, 06:07 PM
We just frown a whole lot less. And we know how to ****ing drive, too.

I've got several dents in my car that say otherwise.

WilliamTheIrish
09-05-2006, 06:08 PM
I don't want to hear another word about the Phelps' and their signs.

KCWolfman
09-11-2006, 11:58 AM
I don't want to hear another word about the Phelps' and their signs.
:clap: :clap: :clap:

Laz
09-11-2006, 12:26 PM
I don't want to hear another word about the Phelps' and their signs.
now sure what you mean by this exactly.



you're not saying that Phelp, and his attack Nazi tactics, and some guy ,posting his opinion in his own yard, are the same because they both use signs are you?

Brock
09-11-2006, 12:30 PM
now sure what you mean by this exactly.



you're not saying that Phelp, and his attack Nazi tactics, and some guy ,posting his opinion in his own yard, are the same because they both use signs are you?

Not sure what you mean by attack Nazi tactics.

Laz
09-11-2006, 12:43 PM
Not sure what you mean by attack Nazi tactics.
gathering a mob of people going to a family funeral ... blocking access ... creating a noisy disturbance to deliberately disrupt a funeral.

phelps = attacking,threatening

guy = voicing his opinion pretty passively imo

KCWolfman
09-11-2006, 12:46 PM
gathering a mob of people going to a family funeral ... blocking access ... creating a noisy disturbance to deliberately disrupt a funeral.

phelps = attacking,threatening

guy = voicing his opinion pretty passively imo
Blocking access is illegal, and wrong.

However, all other you mentioned are "free speech" - which you stated you supported.

Laz
09-11-2006, 12:57 PM
Blocking access is illegal, and wrong.

However, all other you mentioned are "free speech" - which you stated you supported.
there is a line where free speech crosses a line and turns threatening.


the Klu Klux Klan and general hate speech is regulated to some extent.


same thing goes for Phelps .... he's free to think and voice whatever opinions he sees fit.

BUT ..... it changes when he starts disrupting and attacking others in such a mob-like manner.

imo phelps can fill up his yard with as many "god hates gay soldiers" or whatever .... that he wants.

But disturbing the peace, threatening other people is a completely different situation.

WilliamTheIrish
09-11-2006, 01:06 PM
now sure what you mean by this exactly.



you're not saying that Phelp, and his attack Nazi tactics, and some guy ,posting his opinion in his own yard, are the same because they both use signs are you?

I'm saying that it's a form of speech. Which I believe is protected.

I disagree with it. It's beyond disrespectful. But it's only words on a board.

Cochise
09-11-2006, 01:06 PM
gathering a mob of people going to a family funeral ... blocking access ... creating a noisy disturbance to deliberately disrupt a funeral.


I think they usually set them up down the street or something. Have you seen a story where they blocked the doors or something? I would be interested to see if they are permitted to do that.

I'm sure they are within earshot or a sightline, but there are no protections against being offended or having to see something you don't like or whatnot.

Brock
09-11-2006, 01:07 PM
gathering a mob of people going to a family funeral ... blocking access ... creating a noisy disturbance to deliberately disrupt a funeral.

phelps = attacking,threatening

guy = voicing his opinion pretty passively imo

Phelps does not block access to anything, nor do they attack or threaten. I don't want to sound like I'm defending him, but there really isn't any difference between what he does and what war protesters do.

unlurking
09-11-2006, 01:29 PM
I lived in Prairie Village as a child, long ago, but don't ever remember it being the type of neighborhood where signs got posted (other than real estate or garage sale).

I'm sorry, but I would NOT want to live in a neighborhood with 16 square foot signs on the lawns presenting ANY message. A happy birthday/graduation or welcome home type of sign would be cool for a week or two, but other than, I'm thinking trashville neighborhood.

unlurking
09-11-2006, 01:30 PM
Phelps does not block access to anything, nor do they attack or threaten. I don't want to sound like I'm defending him, but there really isn't any difference between what he does and what war protesters do.
Agreed. He is a frickin' psycho, but he is less intrusive than many pro-life protestors.

gblowfish
09-11-2006, 01:39 PM
And the sign said
"Long haired freaky people need not apply...."

WilliamTheIrish
09-11-2006, 06:48 PM
And the sign said
"Long haired freaky people need not apply...."

And cat lovers....

KCWolfman
09-12-2006, 02:43 AM
there is a line where free speech crosses a line and turns threatening.


the Klu Klux Klan and general hate speech is regulated to some extent.


same thing goes for Phelps .... he's free to think and voice whatever opinions he sees fit.

BUT ..... it changes when he starts disrupting and attacking others in such a mob-like manner.

imo phelps can fill up his yard with as many "god hates gay soldiers" or whatever .... that he wants.

But disturbing the peace, threatening other people is a completely different situation.
So free speech ends at the same place your property line does?

KCWolfman
09-12-2006, 02:45 AM
Phelps does not block access to anything, nor do they attack or threaten. I don't want to sound like I'm defending him, but there really isn't any difference between what he does and what war protesters do.
That was my point as well. I had never heard of Phelps threatening or blocking anyone.

He is crass and full of shiet, but so is the idiot posting war protest signs that will never be read in Washington.

gblowfish
09-13-2006, 06:59 PM
And cat lovers....

Laz
09-13-2006, 08:18 PM
So free speech ends at the same place your property line does?
no, and you know i didn't mean that



yelling "fire" in a crowded movie theatre is free speech too




it comes down to when the free speech is more than just "speech"

KCWolfman
09-15-2006, 02:12 AM
no, and you know i didn't mean that



yelling "fire" in a crowded movie theatre is free speech too




it comes down to when the free speech is more than just "speech"
Yelling fire can cause loss of life. I don't see how yelling at a funeral is comparable.

It is idiotic, it is crass, it is disgusting, but hardly on par with attempting to hurt people in a riotous theatre.