hate van in hilo

[terracore]

Shouting "fire" in a crowded theater could create a stampede that hurts or kills people. Showing what some people consider to be disturbing images as a political statement, whether the pulpit is inside a church or on somebody's truck, is something completely different.

I don't disagree that this guy needs to find a better way to express his beliefs, but you're talking apples and oranges with the "fire" argument.

Frankly, I haven't been following this subject or read any of the news reports. I tried reading the petition but it just went on and on repeating itself so I closed the browser window. Has anybody approached the individual and discussed a more effective avenue to express his/her beliefs? Or are we calling the humane society to complain about a barking dog instead of letting the owner know the barking is a problem? Just curious.

ETA: grammar, question

[shockwave rider]

There is a legal recognition of what are called "fighting words." The idea is that certain words, when delivered personally, are so incendiary that any reasonable person would know the other person is likely to respond violently. I doubt this man's signs would qualify as fighting words, although if he directed some of his language directly at an individual person it might. He is staying within his 1st amendment rights, but so are the counter protestors by using the same space and expressing community disapproval of his message being delivered in that place.

[dayna]

My biggest concern is where does it stop (the keeping folks away from the children in the park).

I watched an argument play out on facebook today. One person promoted "making him go away" from the park. Then another person jumped in and said "yeah and the homeless people too".

REALLY? So they (being the people with children) have a right to use the park but not a "homeless person"? And who decides what constitutes a "homeless person".

Where does that stop? What if suddenly christian folk didn't want gay folks in the park (or vis versa)? Why is it okay to stand there holding signs for one thing but not another? Who decides whats "allowed"?

And for the "blurring on tv" remark, I can't remember who made that.

They blur or cover up womans breasts on regular television... but yet I see woman breastfeeding in public ALL THE TIME. (I'm pro public breastfeeding BTW haha). So based on the television argument, we should cover up breasts so babies can't get milk in public.

Again, where does it stop?

Dayna

www.E-Z-Caps.com

[terracore]

When I was a wee lad I was fortunate enough that I got to visit the continent where my mother emigrated from. There were topless women on billboards! There were also topless women on the beaches! I was 12 years old! But other than the fact that as a 12 year old male I was really digging the public advertising and beaches, now it dawns on me that the countries that had topless women on billboards and beaches were also countries that had no freedom of speech. They still don't.

What is my point? The Bill of Rights protects all of us... even the ones we don't want to hear. Otherwise, it is useless. And obscenity and decency are subjective.

[PunaMauka2]

this is a good topic of discussion for the 4th.

definitely one of those issues with an elusive gray area.

for starters, i think it's safe to say that free speech is not ABSOLUTELY absolute in a civilized society. there are certain limits which can be pretty clear, such as the "yelling fire in a crowded theater" example mentioned above. libel and slander are not always accepted as free speech. words which are deemed to be inciting violence are not protected free speech. there are other classes of speech which have also been found to fall outside the First Amendment. things may become even murkier and more problematic in the obscenity category. who is to decide for everyone else what is and what isn't obscene and precisely how to define it? but on the other hand, who in their right mind would reasonably find it legally acceptable to display explicit hardcore pornographic images on billboards across the street from schools?

i don't know exactly where this guy falls in regard to his nearing the legal limits of free speech. i suspect the courts have dealt with similar scenarios quite a number of times before. maybe it would be helpful to look into how courts have previously handled the Westboro Baptist contingent? lord knows they seem to be pushing the limits with their extreme hate speech targeting funerals and such.

[PunaMauka2]

... that being said, like many i tend to be especially wary of legally compromising free speech and the First Amendment. it is the first amendment for good reason. personally, i'd prefer to err on the side of caution in avoiding any slippery slope restricting free speech. too many hard lessons learned from history to ignore the dangers involved there.

[steve1]

It seems like one of the most disturbing aspects of this one-man Jihad is that he chooses to admonish others from the safety of a children's' playground. Yes, the First Amendment allows for free speech but there are restrictions on where it may be allowed. Nobody in their right mind would consider setting up poorly thought out posters promoting hatred at a courthouse, school,or police station because they would be arrested first and then questioned later.

Years ago I recall visiting a children's park in San Francisco which only allowed adults to enter if they were escorted bu a child. Perhaps Hawaii County should pass an ordinance requiring that any adult visiting a children's playground such as Lincoln Park be escorted by a child. I doubt he could find a willing escort.

[TomK]

Jon,

I can't answer your question because I don't know the answer. There are places set aside in London for people to rant and rave and in other UK cities as well (they're called speaker's corners). However, the laws are different in the UK and there is no constitution, so don't think what might happen in the UK is particularly relevant to something happening in a US state.

[kalakoa]

whether the pulpit is inside a church or on somebody's truck, is something completely different

Exactly this: congregants make a conscious choice to enter the church which contains that pulpit; the public street includes many "innocent bystanders" who had no interest in the message being preached. Both may be "open to the public", but there is a huge difference.

they (being the people with children) have a right to use the park but not a "homeless person"?

Similar to above: public park, public property, public rules. There's always making a private park with its own bylaws -- yes this "shouldn't be necessary", but then I shouldn't have to pay for my road three times, either.

explicit hardcore pornographic images on billboards across the street from schools?

Anyone remember when the "porn shop" across from Keaau School simply "had to be shut down" in order to "protect the children", despite the shop owner blacking out the storefront and closing shop for an hour when school let out? No public display, just the existence of pornographic materials. How ironic it was when that shop was forced to move ... and their new location was across from this very same Lincoln Park, and that was somehow okay.

Now, which one of these is "free speech"? Would a "hate shop" be tolerated as long as it paid its share of rent and taxes? (Not defending the message, here.)

As far as a practical suggestion: I would be very surprised if the Hate Van could pass a stringent application of the Code as it applies to signs... because that's what they are... and signs are regulated... especially on public streets...

[Lee M-S]

I think he sets up his signs right there because of traffic patterns; I often get stuck waiting through two light cycles. That means people have lots of time to read his wordy signs.
Perhaps the county could retime the lights so traffic moves through the intersection better.

I used to work for a company that managed payroll for several companies. One of the member companies did something that upset people a whole lot. The member company was off in an industrial area, but our offices were at a busy intersection. So WE wound up being picketed. For YEARS--they felt strongly about the issue. When we moved our offices, the picketers stayed at the old location because it got more traffic.

><(((*< ... ><(("< ... ><('< ... >o>