February 09, 2005
Soldier's Uniform Hangs From Noose In Front Of Home
The sign reads "your tax dollars at work"
Comments are disabled.
Post is locked.
WARNING: Graphic reminder of why this pisses me off.
Makes me happy. Sacbee:
An effigy of a soldier hanging from a house in Sacramento's Land Park neighborhood that sparked controversy over freedom of expression is now gone.Can you imagine someone doing this in say 1943? You can be assured that the Left's iconic savior, FDR, would have sent in the Feds to arrest the bastard. No, take that back. A few neighbors would have 'paid the person a visit' as the police looked the other way. Then the FBI might stop by for questioning.An unknown person tore down part of the camouflage soldier fatigues Wednesday morning, and later someone on a motorcycle took the rest of the political protest, according to neighbors. Throughout the day, people from outside the neighborhood drove by to see it or take it down themselves.
Posted by: Rusty at
08:16 PM
| Comments (32)
| Add Comment
Post contains 171 words, total size 2 kb.
1
Even if you disagree with the message (whatever it may be), you cannot go on someone's property and deface their home.
I am sure that if someone went around taking down American Flags, they would not be met with a lot of cheers.
Whats next...tearing down blogs?
Posted by: Jim at February 09, 2005 08:44 PM (Ufp/9)
2
Jim is absolutely right. Encroaching on another's property to tear down their political statement is wrong.
Which is why I would stand in the street on public property and throw rocks through the window.
And if someone did that to me because of my flag or my blog? Well, that's why man invented the .300 WinMag.
Posted by: Eric at February 09, 2005 09:00 PM (lK7Sh)
3
gonna have to agree with eric on this one.
Posted by: samUwell at February 09, 2005 09:52 PM (9aOBY)
4
"can you.....this in 1943?"
in that year and the a couple before you(usa)had mass rallies against joining ww2.and you had pro hitler meetings,freedom of speech thats what its all about!
Posted by: steve at February 09, 2005 09:57 PM (6M7nL)
5
laws are made by man, justice is divine. from time to time the laws of men fail, and decent men, knowing what is just will render said justice. sometimes that means looking the other way, sometimes throwing rocks. sometimes trespassing.
i'm glad it's gone.
Posted by: mlah at February 10, 2005 12:49 AM (/ryLN)
6
Erik I totally agree. If I was that homeowner I would invest in a shotgun and sit by my window waiting for people like you to do just that.
Posted by: Jim at February 10, 2005 01:29 AM (Ufp/9)
7
There are certain circumstances whereby entering into someone else's property without first gaining permission is SOCIALLY acceptable, if not morally required. I think this is one of those circumstances.
Otherwise, fires, child abuse, violent crimes...if we apply the otherwise tidy rule of not crossing the property line, well then, we can just kiss all of it goodbye because we no longer have a society, but utter barbarism.
The "politically correct" stuff has just gone too far. Society is nothing more or less than how and what individual humans do and allow to be done within their environments. Everyone props up a dividing line and does whatever they can without social obligation to certain standards of decency, then that's the day we no longer have decency or much of a society remaining, but anarchy.
This effigy is purely awful and quite threatening to a standard of public decency. It should not be allowed to remain on public view. The "homeowner" wants to display the effigy in their living room, fine, but once it's placed on public display and as predominantly as it is here, it becomes an issue of signage and takes on a whole other dimension as to consideration for community and social standards.
Posted by: -S- at February 10, 2005 06:08 AM (KWx69)
8
Just another "progressive" supporting the troops. I bet they like Pelosi and Reid.
Posted by: Rod Stanton at February 10, 2005 06:52 AM (gVJtb)
9
'Otherwise, fires, child abuse, violent crimes...'
Interestingly, those are about preventing harm. Here you want to enter in order to do harm. tsk tsk.
Posted by: actus at February 10, 2005 07:31 AM (5Lqt9)
10
Actually, in 1943 it was illegal to support the NAZIS. And by 'illegal' I mean they threw you into jail.
The difference between 1940 and 1940 was that in 1940 we were debating whether or not to enter the war, but by 1943 we were in the war. Once you are the fighting begins then peace no longer exists. Now we are in what Hobbes called 'a state of war'. In a state of war the normal rules of society cease to exist.
Hence, normally society does not sanction killing another human being, but in war we do. And we are not only sanctioning the killing of foreigners, but of our fellow citizens. When we send people to war we know that some will die.
Now,think about it. What is the higher liberty? Which 'right' is the most important--life or speech?
If we can kill our fellow citizens in war then surely we can legitimately stifle some speech.
This has ALWAYS been the case. In WWII we had actual censors.
Further, even if censorship is not merited under the present circumstances surely this effigy constitutes 'fighting words' which are not Constitutionally protected. If it were my neighbor I would go over there and take it down, then if I were arrested I'd argue that the effigy was both an assault and constituted fighting words in my defense.
Posted by: Rusty at February 10, 2005 08:07 AM (JQjhA)
11
It's a statement, and if made to cause discusion on the matter, well then it works perfectly doesn't it 
)
Bob The Gallery Blogger
Nb. Nice blog btw. will be checking back
)
)
Bob The Gallery Blogger
Nb. Nice blog btw. will be checking back
) Posted by: Gallery Blogger at February 10, 2005 08:27 AM (YJYHE)
12
Did anyone interview the person who put it up?
Frankly, there are better ways of making a political statement. That's pretty tasteless, imo.
Posted by: Venom at February 10, 2005 08:51 AM (dbxVM)
13
If you think that's bad, we had an issue here in TX, where this homeowner was told to take the American Flag down she had displayed on her house!
Seems it was against the homeowner's association rules that you could only fly the flag on special occasions, like Memorial Day, Flag Day, 4th of July etc.
Reason being that it "detracted from the property value" and that it could open the door to any other kind of flag being displayed, such as a Confederate Flag, Swastika, whatever.
The resident took it to court, and won, and is allowed to display her flag 24/7.
Posted by: Laura at February 10, 2005 09:13 AM (ptOpl)
14
Some of you have avoided the question though...even if the political statement is in bad taste and you don't agree with it...How can you justify stifling freedom of speech when you are so quick to denounce islamic countries for doing the same thing?
Although it wasn't the government that removed the "sign", it speaks a lot about our society.
The people who went to that house and took away the homeowner's amendment rights are no different from the iranian officials who arrested bloggers for making political statements.
Period.
Posted by: Jim at February 10, 2005 11:01 AM (Ufp/9)
15
Jim, I understand what you're trying to say, but freedom of speech is generally contextualized within the society its uttered. Its why porn is outlawed in some counties, why "artists" like Istvan Kantor are barred from some institutions, and why Holocaust deniers are charged with promoting hatred. Freedom of speech has its limits, and those limits are generally derived from the communities we live in.
Does the guy have a right to voice his opposition to the war in Iraq? Absolutely. Does he have to do it in a tasteless manner? Most would say not. Outside of Hallowe'en, hanging an effigee by a noose outside of your home for everyone to see is generally not what society considers proper.
Posted by: Venom at February 10, 2005 11:48 AM (dbxVM)
16
One thing that bothers me about the left's freedom of speech "movement" is that the First Amendment says, "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech".
Did Congress demand that this moron take down this display? No. How is this person's freedom of speech being violated?
It would seem that the left has the right to put up displays like this and to compare Bush to Hitler but I don't have the right to take down an offensive display or call people like Janeane Garafolo an idiot.
Posted by: Rob at February 10, 2005 11:56 AM (K5g5u)
17
If men are willing to stand by in the face of evil then evil triumphs. Sorry I'd be happy to tear it down. The same way I'd tear down a sign on someone's lawn that proclaimed Kill the Niggers, Spicks, etc, etc.
Its not freedom of expression, if it is so is the other sign.
Choose.
Posted by: TJ Jackson at February 10, 2005 12:06 PM (zitVZ)
18
Hobbes claimed that there is only a state of war when there is no government influence to control human violence. This is true on the World level, the UN being an ineffective governing system that has been successfully undermined and without strong enforcement agencies to govern individual states, but, on the national level, this is not the case. The U.S. government still effectively controls our individual violent actions. So, while taking each nation to be an individual in the world there is a state of war, there is not a person-to-person state of war within the United States. Therefore, it is up to the government to chose whether to enforce this particular point of the law or to leave it unregulated. While I believe hanging effigies of soldiers is wrong or right, it is not my duty to govern, but to be governed, and it is the duty of federal, state, and local officials to rule for or against this type of behavior. So, the correct response would be to call your honorable neighborhood police officer to come and take it down.
Posted by: Johnny at February 10, 2005 12:20 PM (cp2CN)
19
Venom, point taken. Yet, I don't think this is similar to "kill the ni**ers" either. I guess it all depends on how you intrepet the sign. I DOUBT that the homeowners were in some way promoting the effigy of dead US soldiers as seen in falluja.
As I said before, I am not sure what message these people were trying to make but I would have definately done it differently.
Posted by: Jim at February 10, 2005 01:13 PM (p6jU/)
20
It was illegal in 1942. Daschel Hammond held a rally against WW2 in Frisco in 42 stating that we should be fighting the Capitalists and on the side of the National Soci---ist Labor Party. FDR had him thrown in jail. Folks in NoCal have been anti-America for almost a century. But at least FDR threw the leaders in jail - even the writer of a great detective book the MALTESE FALCON.
Posted by: Rod Stanton at February 10, 2005 05:46 PM (gVJtb)
21
Hey, Jim, you lost all credibility with me when you couldn't spell my name even though it was right in front of your leftard face. As to your point about the shotgun, well, that's why I carry a Colt .357. I'll fire back.
Posted by: Eric at February 10, 2005 06:40 PM (lK7Sh)
22
just cause it was illegal to be anti ww2,it didn't stop them did it.and it shouldn't stop you now.even if your in jail it dosn't meen you were wrong.and in no way did i compare bush to hitler.WARS ARE NOT WON,THEY ARE LOST
Posted by: steve at February 10, 2005 09:42 PM (6M7nL)
23
Eric, Erik, Piece of Shit, whatever...
You have no credibilty with me so frankly I don't give a fuck how you want your name to be spelled. Considering you would be standing in the middle of the street with no covering, I don't think you would get a shot off so it doesn't matter what you carrying.
Posted by: Jim at February 11, 2005 06:20 AM (Ufp/9)
24
The guy who tore down the soldier committed an act of vandalism. He should be prosecuted for violating the law.
Posted by: Libertarian Girl at February 11, 2005 10:35 AM (NigL1)
25
"If men are willing to stand by in the face of evil than evil triuphs"- one could hazard a guess to say that the homeowner feel what has happened to our troops is just that- evil. PS- remeber- look down the barrel when you clean your guns guys- more air for me.
Posted by: Max at February 11, 2005 03:27 PM (HFKAk)
26
Shit they interviewed a couple who lives a few doors down from the display, and they are saying the kid that took the display down, should be arrested for stealing and trepassing!
Posted by: Laura at February 12, 2005 09:15 AM (ptOpl)
27
Seems to me that while a lot of folks are spouting first amendment freedoms, we seem to have forgotten about the patriot act that allows law enforcement to arrest folks that are suspected of being involved in terrorism. Shit, if I was law enforcement, I would find it real easy to suspect them of terrorism, arrest their dumb asses and rifle thru everything in their house to make sure.
Posted by: Phil at February 14, 2005 05:44 PM (VtK1S)
28
Its a good thing you ARE NOT law enforcement.
Posted by: Jim at February 15, 2005 04:07 AM (WciPa)
29
Phil has a good point, and I'd like to suggest to any law enforcement officers out there that people who place crap like this on the exterior of their house probably have a cache of Islamist bomb-assembly instructions hidden on their person. Specifically, in their colon. DEEP in their colon; I mean, like, elbow deep or deeper.
Posted by: RussfromWinterset at February 15, 2005 06:39 PM (+7VNs)
30
As an Army wife I am ashamed of these people who placed the uniform (that my husband proudly wears)on display like this. My daughters are proud of their father and a sight like this would upset the hell out of them.
Posted by: Tera at February 16, 2005 07:06 PM (bAk8l)
31
Wish that family would move to my neighborhood. Running out of fuel for our weekly bombfire.
Posted by: greyrooster at February 17, 2005 01:48 AM (CBNGy)
32
MAX: Where be da getto porch monkey? He be in dem white collar fields. Maybe he be caughtee.
Posted by: greyrooster at February 19, 2005 04:01 AM (CBNGy)
35kb generated in CPU 0.0198, elapsed 0.1417 seconds.
119 queries taking 0.1308 seconds, 281 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
119 queries taking 0.1308 seconds, 281 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
