Ocala Florida fines business owner for flying "Dont Tread on Me" flag
 

A Florida small business owner said Monday the city of Ocala has threatened to fine him if he does not immediately take down a Gadsden flag currently displayed outside his store.

Gear Barrel owner Keith Greenberg told TheBlaze that the city said he was permitted to fly the American flag outside his store, but prohibited from displaying anything else outside his business which specializes in selling knives.

“This is a shock,” he said. “Honestly, I feel like this is Russia. I’ve been around the world … this is what you expect in really closed countries where there is no freedom of expression. Not here — so it’s shocking.”

“This is a shock. Honestly, I feel like this is Russia.”
Share:
The flying of the flag appears to be prohibited under the city code of ordinance, section 110-131.

Greenberg told TheBlaze he faces being fined up to $250-$500 per day if he does not comply. He said the potential fines would be devastating to his young small business, which he opened in May.

“The city of Ocala is demanding I take this down,” he told TheBlaze.


Greenberg posted a video to YouTube earlier this month trying to raise awareness of the move being made by the city.

“We find ourselves in a sad place where local municipalities are stepping all over people’s freedom with the signing of a pen,” he said.

Greenberg told TheBlaze he was even more perplexed by the city’s demands because he has spotted other flags being flown at nearby establishments.

Photographs forwarded to TheBlaze show an Ocala car dealership flying the Mexican flag and an Irish bar displaying the Irish flag. It was not clear whether or not the city had also issued similar notices to the other businesses.


The city’s code enforcement office could not immediately be reached Monday night for comment by TheBlaze.

The small business owner said his next move will be to address the city council at their next meeting.


http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014...his-is-russia/



<iframe width="620" height="349" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/GCbfOkQILk8" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Holder is on the way to sort this out, I'm sure.

If he doesn't like the law, he should petition the city of Ocala to change it. Otherwise, he should obey the laws that are in place. That's what good citizens do.

Yep.


It is a cool flag with a great story behind it, though.

Ocala

I am failing to feel the outrage here.

I'd rather have Luv bring me grape Gatorade than read another Deberg thread.

Dieberg thread.

I would rather fly the flag outta my ass than read another one of these abortion of a threads.

Dude, thread of the year

I would say freedom of speech supercedes said law. Still, not able to get too worked up about this.

I don't understand why it is hard for him to understand. The city ordinance is what it is. Get it changed if you don't like it.

But I guess the publicity might be more valuable than the fine money.

It sounds like an illegal ordinance, though. I mean it sure looks like he just wants attention, but he has a point.

Cities have rules about signage and shit outside of businesses? Must be the first of its type in the nation!

Next thing, they'll be making rules about how some businesses can only be located in certain "zones" in the city other businesses need to be located in other "zones."

I'm thinking there might be a way to avoid those devastating fines.

See, that's your problem right there, Mr Greenberg. Your next move is to take down the flag. Your next move after taking down the flag is to address the city council at their next meeting.

Only allowing people to fly American flags? Flying a flag (which in this case is patriotic anyway, not that it should matter) isn't protected free speech? The anti-outrage crowd is every bit as crazy as the pro-outrage crowd.

The one valid point he had was about other establishments not being cited for having Irish, Mexican, whatever flags. If true, he is being singled out via selective enforcement.

That's what I would do, but it seems to me he is exercising his constitutional rights. I would rather just get the ordinance done away with quietly rather than make a big todo, but he certainly shouldn't ultimately be responsible for those fines. (Assuming he's not misrepresenting the nature of the violation)

Question about this constitutional right to free speech...

Do you think that means that we simply get to say whatever we want, or do you think it means that we get to say whatever we want and also to do so whenever we want, wherever we want?

And people have been calling Putin a fascist?

Of course there are reasonable restrictions. I fail to see how restricting the flying of a flag qualifies. It's not like he's planting the thing in other people's lawns.

Good point. Threatening a fine over flying a flag is far more extreme than anything Putin has ever done.

It said it wasn't clear if the other places had received notices.

Maybe official national flags are allowed, I don't know.
I'll bet that even in regard to a US flag, there are rules about the size and whatnot.

This isn't a free speech issue if it applies to all flags rather than just political ones.

It's illegal for me to build a fence across my sidewalk. Freedom of speech doesn't give me the right to build a fence across my sidewalk as long as I write a political message on it.

Having this flag up isn't illegal because of what it says. It's illegal because it's a flag, and there is a law against having flags.

Hence the "if true" disclaimer in my post...

I suppose, but fences aren't inherently vehicles for expression. Flags are. Also, they allow American flags. So in your example the fence would be legal if it had stars and stripes on it.

Him flying this flag is no different than putting up a sign or something, and there are rules regarding signage (size, content, etc.) in probably every city in the country. I doubt these city ordinances have been deemed unconstitutional.

Quite frankly, despite the fact that the Gadsden flag is an especially political flag that screams free speech, I suspect that his motives for flying it are somewhat advertising related rather than purely political. Of course, only he would really know whether my suspicion is true.

That wasn't the comparison I was making. Just that some were calling Putin a fascist. You do know what the word means, right? I am talking about controls on speech. You don't seem to have a problem with the man in the article saying he feels like this is Russia, now do you.

It's hard to say without knowing the language of the ordinance. If it is as he says, and only official American flags are allowed, then that's allowing a particular form of political expression and not another.

Again, I think he should just protest to the city and get it handled that way. Still, I think I understand the source of the outrage, if not the degree.

Even if not, I am almost certain his reasons for trying to incite an online campaign are advertising related. That's probably a big reason I don't really care that much.

Advertising free speech is allowed too. But gun buyers are protective of this right under the 2nd Amendment so it gets tied up with politics. Let's not forget our Framers were also discussing political speech when they wanted to protect free speech.

It's not like this is an obscenity charge against morals which supposed to be a local matter. My suspicion is that someone in Ocala may not like it because of the political message because they don't agree with it.

If that was his motive, then it's pretty brilliant. He's getting press on it. That outta stir up the gun crowd!

Meh. Unless nearly all of his 17,000 views are loca tea party members, I doubt it's gonna be worth the fines.

Yes, obviously, advertising is speech and all speech (at least in theory) should be protected within reason. Reason not being a standard unit of measure, regulation will exist to regulate it.

I think you're correct when you guess that someone bristled and now Mr. Greenberg finds himself afoul of an attempt at reasonable regulation.

We should be grateful to the founders that all he has to do for now is take down his flag and petition for a redress of this grievance.

It's more like exceptions to the rule or are a case of conflicting rights—like protecting life. Can't put people at risk if someone yells "fire" in a crowded room. It's also a lie. Libel and slander damage others. So I don't get where this idea of regulating speech comes from when it's not a whole lot.

Got it! But I don't think it's any thing close to "reasonable" regulation especially in a time when incorporation of the BoRs has been the continuing trend. I could see it if it was flown too high or blocked something else important but not being told he has to fly an American flag. I'm rusty on the origins of this flag, but iirc it surfaced during the American Revolution. The pieces of snake rep the colonies I believe.

I doubt a bunch of men who committed treason toward the crown, their govt at the time would advocate for such an act. Afterall these are men who threw tea in a harbor and pamphleteered against the crown in violation of local laws.

Where's your feisty spirit tonight CB?

Here it is. https://library.municode.com/index.aspx?clientId=10003

US flags are allowed.

As are "Governmental or religious flags or insignia and holiday decorations incidental to the business and customarily associated with any national, religious or local holiday."
This might cover the Mexican and Irish flags as this doesn't specify "US governmental."

But it also seems that pretty much any other flag is OK as long as it is not more than 200 square inches.

Based on the pic in the OP, this looks like a size issue.
Frankly, it doesn't seem that obtrusive to me and probably the code enforcement guy was bored that day, but I agree with the general rules in principle.

Unless he rallies a bunch of him to his cause where they all come out for him.

When the British crown refused to act on repeated petitions, Thomas Jefferson wrote a letter and got a few friends to cosign it. There is a time for playing masquerade and dumping tea and a time for taking up the pen.

Just wanted to mention that his freedom of expression does allow his knife store to advertise "Killer Prices" on the window. So, that's something.

Yes I know. I agree he should take it down first. I just don't think it's a "reasonable" ordinance. So after he takes it down, it should be fought.

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/EkEbqgbSqs8" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Ha. If that's it I will respectfully remove myself from this debate. Stunning he didn't mention this in his video.

Okala Florida fines business owner for flying "Dont Tread on Me" flag
 

If that is the case you have to wonder if he was aware of that all along and knew he could use it to be "oppressed" and drum up business.

"Okala", aka Ocala, is funny. They should put a bubble over that place.

This. It even says the name in the article. Fail!

Thats what I was thinking - First Amendment - on private property - what reasonable argument could the city make for restricting his right to fly that flag.

LMAO 200 Inches = 16 feet - If thats a 16 foot flag I have a wife

I'd bet the ACLU would handle the lawsuit

That's sort of the rub here.....there are American flags with Mexican flags all over the business district. He's merely flying a flag that is as much a part of America as the American flag. The "city" doesn't like it.

Frankly, I say sue the city.

If that is truly the case, the city had better begin enforcing their "law" among every other business in the city and, oh, while they're at it, better take that flag down at City Hall....

Jesus, what is happening to this country.....

I guess that's true if the flag is one inch wide. 16 inches long by 12.5 inches wide is 200 square inches. The flag in this picture looks to be a standard 3' by 5', which is 2,160 square inches...11 times the permissible size.

What's the point in getting worked up over this? It's not a political issue. It has nothing to do with the image/verbiage on the flag. It's a simple city ordinance limiting the size of flags outside buildings. It's not like they're stopping him from displaying the biggest Gadsden flag on Earth inside his building. You just don't get to turn a little shopping district into Tijuana by blocking the sidewalk/walkway with giant signs, flags, etc.

200 SQUARE inches.

Hate speech!

That means a 12" x 18" flag would be just slightly too large for a city ordinance. That appears to be a standard size 3' by 5' flag, so it's safe to say he is in violation.

I fixed it... It confused me.

In the spirit of the flag he is flying, he should tell them to shove it up their ass and fly it anyway.

Reddit posted a supreme Court case on this in California. California lost. Will happen here also. Just depends how quick.

I only watched ~10 seconds.

I'm guessing the ordinance was originally to keep people from flogging the pedestrians with bedsheets as they walked down the sidewalk, but 200 square inches sounds awfully small.

I would hope they enforced this ordinance equally among the rest of the businesses and didn't just single out killer pricing on knives boy.

He was singled out I'm sure, for an obvious reason that everyone seems to be tip-toeing around.

Everyone knows what political movement this flag has become associated with.

I'm finding it hard to care about this.

FWIW I was laughing because of they way you said "it looks like a size issue" yes I am 12....and I didn't see in the regulation where is said "square" inches

Who's worked up? I'm just having fun with my 200'' "Gadsden Flag"