Despite granting permission for the temporary street art and even providing the paint for the July 4 project, officials in [Redwood City, California] ordered the painting be cleared from its prime location late last week, KPIX reported....Under First Amendment law, if it's a public forum, then the decisions must be viewpoint neutral. If, on the other hand, you see it as government speech, government can say one thing and not another if it wants. But not everyone wants to litigate.
The request [to paint MAGA 2020] came from local attorney Maria Rutenburg, who [argued] that once the words “Black Lives Matter” were painted on the street, it effectively became “a public forum.” “Everybody has a chance of saying whatever they feel like,” she added. “My speech is just as important as BLM.”
Rutenburg said she immediately heard back from city officials noting that they were considering her proposal. Just over a week later, they denied her request over concerns that the painting would be a “traffic hazard,” she said....
On Tuesday, Rutenburg [wrote] in an email to The Post... “I think we can all agree that black lives matter, and that equality is important. These are really fundamental truths... But what’s happening is now is one loud political group intimidating the cities into speaking their own private agenda just because cities are afraid of being called racist if they do not give in on the spot.”The resident behind the "Black Lives Matter" street-painting, Dan Pease, responded: "Black Lives Matter is not a political statement... Black Lives Matter is a human rights issue. Black Lives Matter is a call; it’s a message, it’s a symbol."
Well, "MAGA 2020" is more overtly political, but what would Pease say if Rutenberg's proposal were to paint "America First" on the street? That's my hypothetical — to give the 2 messages the same degree of surface neutrality.
I told you last week what I thought about painting words on the street:
I don't think a political message should be painted in large letters on the street. The street should be kept clear and uncluttered, with the safety of drivers, bicyclists, and pedestrians as the overwhelming priority. It's one thing to paint "STOP" crosswise on a street at an intersection, where the idea is to force the driver to be even more aware than usual of the need to stop. It's quite another to paint several words lengthwise on the street and to distract the driver into reading something that isn't related to driving. Quite aside from safety and neatness, the city shouldn't be choosing one political message over others and making it a semi-permanent part of the infrastructure. Political speech should be left to the people to write and speak to each other. That's community — when people can speak to each other, not when they can get the government to repeat their slogan for them in paint on the street.
Posts
83 comments:
Allowable state sponsored lecture:
BLM
Rainbow flag
Actually, Black Lives Matter is the name of 501(c)3 with a specific social justice agenda. It is no longer "a human rights statement" but the name of a political entity.
The cities are apparently getting into the publishing business along with Twitter and Facebook.
"MAGA 2020" is more overtly political
If you wish to donate to BLM you are directed to ActBlue which is the collection agent for Democratic candidates. Want to donate directly to your local democrat? Sorry, you probably can't. You'll also be directed to ActBlue where donation goes into the big pile and the whoever at ActBlue decides where to send it. Wherever you choose- no obligation to send it where you intended your donation to go.
Despite the 'fact checkers' objections to disclose that...
What could be more overtly political than that?
I don't see how washing away Black Lives Matter changes anything. They approved it, they had it there for weeks, it's not government speech (neat dodge, though--that's the sort of stunt I might have tried back in college).
They have established the precedent that political slogans may go on that street and removing one left-wing political slogan that's been there since July 4 changes none of that.
Was up in Port Townsend this last weekend. There seems to be a clear correlation between KungFlu hysteria and BLM signaling in Proggy White communities.
"Black Lives Matter is not a political statement... Black Lives Matter is a human rights issue. Black Lives Matter is a call; it’s a message, it’s a symbol.
This is a lie leftists tell all of the time, as if "rights" are a matter of political discussion (until the courts stick their fat noses in). They pretend that their politics aren't politics at all, and thus how could anyone oppose them? No important person is against "human rights" or against the idea that the lives of black people "matter". No leftists would pretend for a second that "gun rights are human rights" means that gun rights advocacy isn't a political issue.
BLM is still a political message because it's a call to societal action, even under the most friendly interpretation, that we're not obliged to provide (and shouldn't). "Black Lives Matter", however, is also a political statement as well as a explicitly radical political organization run by admitted Marxists with an explicitly political agenda. People should pretending otherwise.
“The cities are apparently getting into the publishing business along with Twitter and Facebook. “
The difference, if there is one, is very likely sovereign immunity on the part of the cities. They probably do not need CDA §230 to protect them from defamation suits.
"Black Lives Matter is not a political statement... Black Lives Matter is a human rights issue. Black Lives Matter is a call; it’s a message, it’s a symbol."
In Roman Catholic Canon Law, I believe this is called Invincible Ignorance.
People of color living in poor neighborhoods nearby could not be reached for comment.
Luckily they have woke white people at City Hall to speak on their behalf.
Black Lives Matter is not a political statement, unless it is a political statement, in which case it is not a political statement but it is.
Motte, meet Bailey.
"That's community — when people can speak to each other..."
Ann has given us another high bar akin to "better than nothing".
Speaking to each other, as opposed to screaming and threatening, is a difficult bar to reach.
There are 13 organizations using "Black Lives Matter" that have been issued EINs by the IRS. Some are 501(c)(3) and some are 501(c)(4). Some are revoked. ActBlue is funneling BLM donations to some group or groups and God only knows where it ends up. There's no transparency and no accountability; and that's probably how they like it. If you "give money to BLM" you're clueless and deserve to be separated from your cash, in my opinion.
What Conservachussets said. Even if there weren't a specific 501(c)3, it's a political movement, complete with founders who give interviews. I believe the term of art for "Black Lives Matter is not a political statement... Black Lives Matter is a human rights issue. Black Lives Matter is a call; it’s a message, it’s a symbol" is "gaslighting." It's right up there with "Antifa is a myth." Who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes?
Ultimately, this is the most shocking thing to me: the brazenness of the leftist bad-faith... I can't call them "arguments." They aren't making arguments. The brazenness of asserting a metaphysics as objective fact, up to and including claiming political movements with leadership appearing in media as res as it gets literally don't exist.
"Black Lives Matter is not a political statement...
How about "All Lives Matter", is That a political statement?
How about "Hong Kong Matters", is That a political statement?
How about "White Lives Matter", is That a political statement?
goose sauce.... gander sauce
They pretend that their politics aren't politics at all, and thus how could anyone oppose them?
Progressives do not have politics. They have religion. If you dissent, you are immoral and hateful and deserve destruction.
It is a safety issue, plain and simple. I'm surprised the municipalities allowed it for one second. Lawsuits will be forthcoming after the first accident on these ridiculously painted streets, of that we can be guaranteed.
If:
..traffic control markings (e.g. center stripes, crosswalks)
....as defined in State regulations and
....explained State issued driver education materials
..are obliterated by other markings (e.g. "BLACK LIVES MATTER", rainbow spectrum)
And a City:
....allows
....issues a permit for
....uses City resources for
..obliteration of said traffic control markings
Then:
..is non-existence of such markings a defense of driver citation for failure to observe?
..is the City a contributing actor in traffic accidents which reasonably would have been prevented by existence of proper markings?
Asking for a friend.
There has to be a part of the black community that finds it embarrassing - even wince-inducing - to have the white community putting up BLM signs everywhere as if 'those poor things' can't possibly fend for themselves. I know it's a 'we're with you' move, but it's still so different from the prideful days of the Panthers and Say It Loud. Days when women (I see you Angela) weren't running the show - as they do now. Okay, I've managed to insult everyone.
In my heart, "BLM" will always fondly mean to me "Bureau of Land Management".
"Fondly" because BLM usually has fewer rules 'n' regulations than the Forest Service.
If, on the other hand, you see it as government speech, government can say one thing and not another if it wants.
Is that accurate? If a government allowed "vote Biden" "OrangeManBad" to be painted on streets and erased anything supporting Trump (and arrested the graffiti artist) that would be allowed?
Could Chicago government put up "no Jews" signs at the borders?
If this is correct, then why hasn't every one party government done this every election?
did you hear about the Michegan teacher who was fired for saying "Trump is the president"
Yep.
BLM, Rainbow flag
The progressive paradox, the liberal simile: some, select Black Lives Matter, and symbolic exclusion of black, brown, and gay pride in the shredded remains of white lives.
sovereign immunity on the part of the cities
States, right? Cities are corporate entities.
Anyway, "MAGA 2020" is not overtly political. "Make America Great Again" is a non-partisan aspiration of all Americans, not at all inconsistent with "Black Lives Matter." Unless it is a political statement. Welcome to the motte-and-bailey shuffle.
Black Lives Matter is a human rights issue
Yes, diversity (e.g. racism) and the establishment of the Progressive Church (PC) with the Pro-Choice, selective, opportunistic religion ("ethics") are human and civil rights issues. #BLM
It's worth noting the the Black Lives Matter Global Initiative, the original organization created during the Michael Brown incident in Ferguson, is a FOR PROFIT corporation -- not a 501C3.
You may notice their website is a .com -- not .org -- because they do not qualify as a not for profit. There is no 501C3 accountability for the $100mm plus that the group has extorted from businesses this year and there is no rationale for painting the name of a corporation on a public road.
This is the dodge they always use, to say that their political beliefs aren't really political beliefs, they are just common decency, or whatever, so it can't be questioned. It's very convenient for them, and the right is always 10 steps behind in this regard.
I don't think a political message should be painted in large letters on the street. The street should be kept clear and uncluttered, with the safety of drivers, bicyclists, and pedestrians as the overwhelming priority.
Then stop voting for Democrats.
Black lives matter. Its not political, man, its about DECENCY. Its about HUMAN RIGHTS. And if you disagree, that's not political either, that's HATE. LOL! No, its politics because black lives matter is a Political Organization that is not only Marxist - its funneling money to the Democrat party!
And using the Left's logic. Why is "Make America Great Again" political? Its just about LOVE OF COUNTRY. Its about "patriotism". And if you oppose it you HATE AMERICA.
Why not write "All lives Matter"? Aren't brown lives worth mentioning?
Lets be glad they're not putting up black lives matter signs/posters every block. Or demanding people go outside and chant "black lives matter" in unison at Noon.
If fascism ever comes to America it will come as Anti-racism, Anti-fascism, and under guise of being against HATE.
Ann's opinion has the benefit of being both common sense and sound legally. The Dems, however, are rabid partisans.
The comments are interesting, but scary. There are a number of people arguing that BLM is a "human rights message" or "truth" so therefore it is privileged. On the upside, about one-third of the commenters appear to be aware that you can't allow one bit of speech without allowing all First Amendment protected speech. That is, they have thought through the consequences of the precedents being set, not just insisted that this is special.
Probably the scariest thing about the Trump years is the expansion of things considered to be sui generis. Trump is unique, so the laws and Constitution don't apply. BLM is unique so the laws and Constitution don't apply. COVID-19 is unique so the laws and Constitution don't apply. Though to be fair, we did the same thing with 9/11 and the 2009 financial crisis.
In a sense, then, it appears that our expert/elite class is ever more convinced that the laws and Constitution are a handy guide for everyday situations so they can devote their attention to deciding things too important to be left to the laws and the Constitution.
This is why the only non-baseball person allowed to go to a baseball game in person is Anthony Fauci, the one whose guidance suggests that ordinary people should remain safely ensconced at home.
BLM and Anthony Fauci are special, doncha know?
Someone want to 'splain to me how "BLM" spray-painted onto a county courthouse is vandalism, while spray-painting "BLM" on a city street, a public way, is not?
Tim m
It might not change anything but it proves something.
If "All lives matter" is political, then everything is political. The shark got jumped way back when that became an insult to anyone. OK, maybe it would be insulting to serial killers, murderous dictators, and abortionists, but they shouldn't count.
Maybe the city didn’t really want to own the message as “government speech”.
Clown nose on - clown nose off.
How about MAGA 2020,but only for the same number of days as BLM was allowed?
You cannot productively discuss policy or even negotiate unless you have a condition approximating parity in terms of political, economic or institutional power. A "balance of terror" is necessary.
Legal threats are a form of "terror".
This is par for the course for soft headed, californian, progressive cities everywhere. They never think a countervailing political message will ever make use of the same dispensation they are making for BLM. Although the fact they only allowed this to be made with chalk gives you a hint they knew it wouldn't last forever.
Progressives do not have politics. They have religion. If you dissent, you are immoral and hateful and deserve destruction.
The Pro-Choice, selective, opportunistic religion.
Pro-life is cruel and unusual punishment, a "burden", for women and men who are asked to accept personal responsibility for their choices, and a deprivation of capital to Planned Parenthood Federation et al a la restricting immigration reform (e.g. foreign students and tuition) during a pandemic. They really hoped to establish the political myth of systemic rape-rape or rape-rape culture to socially justify their religious prescriptions. Now, after 16 trimesters of witch hunts and warlock judgments, they hope to establish systemic diversity, and corporations follow in a fascist family.
One detail was at first glance annoying, that the city provided the paint. But the paint they supplied was "poster paint". Doesn't it rain a lot in Portland?
From the post:
"Under First Amendment law, if it's a public forum, then the decisions must be viewpoint neutral. If, on the other hand, you see it as government speech, government can say one thing and not another if it wants."
Such as erecting a statue or monument. Unless, of course, the Tragically Woke object.
"But not everyone wants to litigate."
Some prefer to defenestrate.
If fascism ever comes to America it will come as Anti-racism, Anti-fascism, and under guise of being against HATE.
If?
RC ocean- If?
it's coming... It's here.
Why not write "All lives Matter"?
Because this past July 5th, a 24 year old woman named Jessica Whitaker tried to argue with a group of young black men that “all lives matter,” and consequently she and the group she was with were ambushed, and she was shot in the head and killed, leaving behind a three year old son.
Aren't brown lives worth mentioning?
Well Hell, if you look at FBI crime statistics you see that black lives don’t even matter much to other black people, so don’t look for them to care much about anyone of any other color.
We should argue that the speech is religious in nature and therefore the government cannot speak in this arena.
Same with climate, er glowball, warmening/changing.
Prove me wrong.
Another good point now that I have read the comments above:
This may be political fundraising by a political entity for a political party.
I do not believe that is allowed.
Most states expressly forbid it.
Do red lives matter?
Or only when corporate America is removing representations of natives?
Which lives - in particular - do not matter?
One set of rules for all. Period.
Why is this so difficult for leftists to understand?
Too bad blacks don't believe in BLM. Check out Chicago.
You may notice their website is a .com -- not .org -- because they do not qualify as a not for profit.
There is no requirement or restriction - of any type - to use .org for a website.
I don’t see how the government has a right to publish politically partisan speech. Black Lives Matter is a trademark of the Democrat Party. They can pretend it’s not, but that’s like when Odysseus defeated the Cyclops by saying his name was “Nobody” so when the Cyclops yelled for help, the monster said “Nobody is trying to kill me!” etc, and his friends didn’t come. Why should they? So the trick goes back to the Bronze Age.
It’s a fundamental truth that the lives of black people matter, but they have turned that particular phrase into a political slogan and all money given to Black Lives Matter [TM] goes to Democrat politicians. It’s propaganda, you know, like the Nazis used. It seems like these people take more and more tactics from the Nazis, and incidentally, from the fascists who took over South Africa and installed Apartheid.
This reminds me of the issues my clients at DelDOT and other state transportation agencies faced when KKK affiliates sought to Adopt a Highway for litter control and, BTW, have the affiliates’ name appear on the sponsorships signs.
"There has to be a part of the black community that finds it embarrassing - even wince-inducing - to have the white community putting up BLM signs everywhere as if 'those poor things' can't possibly fend for themselves"
My God, you'd think so. And the incredible tokenism on display in media and advertising. But Black folks seem to have an insatiable appetite for being patronized by their exploiters.
At Peace Pavilion West, little Ludmilla painted 'Black Lives Matter' on every single goat shed. The family rejected the Collective for personal ambition and skipped on back to Bosnia.
They even stole some hand-woven linens out of the Human Pagoda.
Goddamned low-rent Greta. Good riddance.
There are limitations even to "government speech."
There is slight of hand going on. black lives matter is a slogan but Black Lives Matter is a registered political group allied with the Democrat party (see comments above noting that dem operatives collect donations for BLM). It is the law that gov officials cannot use gov resources to conduct political messaging, but allowing BLM to be painted and nothing else in fact is political messaging. The dems know this but are being coy about it.
If, on the other hand, you see it as government speech, government can say one thing and not another if it wants.
Is that accurate? If a government allowed "vote Biden"
serious question
are there people on EARTH that do not realize that Black Lives Matter is the name of a political group?
The Black Lives Matter website, has on its top right corner; a button marked "DONATE" that links to ActBlue: ActBlue is a nonprofit technology organization established in June 2004 that enables left-leaning nonprofits, Democrats, and progressive groups to raise money on the Internet by providing them with online fundraising software. Its stated mission is to "empower small-dollar donors".
The organization is open to Democratic campaigns, candidates, committees, and progressive 501(c)4 organizations
ActBlue IS the democrat party. It is Only open to "Democratic campaigns, candidate, committees, AND 501(c)4 organizations... BLM is NOT a 501(c)4 org;
Therefore it MUST BE a democrat campaign, candidate, or committee
Here is the math
BlackLivesMatter==ActBlue==democrat party
Since BLM is a POLITICAL arm of the democrat party,
Painting Black Lives Matter on a street is EXACTLY THE SAME as painting Vote Jo Biden 2020
would THAT be legal for a government to do?
The seat of government for San Mateo County (pop. 700,000) is on that block in Redwood City, not the City of San Mateo as one might expect. The county courthouse and where one goes to pay property taxes in person are nearby. I often go there on business, and lawyers are well-acquainted with the neighborhood. So it was more than just a street on some city in California, the location was deliberately chosen so the sign would be seen by many of our movers and shakers.
If it's government speech, did they do an environmental impact study before painting? Did they appropriately invite bids from painters and then follow the prescribed bid review process? Did the contractor employed to paint it follow the appropriate prevailing wage laws and health and safety guidelines? Various people get to sue the government over violations of that stuff. It seems to me that they have a lot more to lose in court if they call it government speech than if they admit that it's public speech.
Unknown said...Too bad blacks don't believe in BLM. Check out Chicago.
Isn't it obvious that Black lives only matter when they are killed by White cops?
The future of inner city Chicago policing will be in the hands of the street gangs. (They already have plenty of political power). I wonder if Black lives will matter when they are lost to the gang enforcers.
I genuinely can't understand how anyone can be so dumb as to say this:
The resident behind the "Black Lives Matter" street-painting, Dan Pease, responded: "Black Lives Matter is not a political statement... Black Lives Matter is a human rights issue. Black Lives Matter is a call; it’s a message, it’s a symbol."
Human rights claims are extremely political statements. Does he genuinely not know this or does he think everyone else is as illiterate as he seems to be?
And of course "calls", "messages" and "symbols" can be political. Utter question-begging idiocy.
"One set of rules for all. Period.
Why is this so difficult for leftists to understand?" Amen Jim at.
Same goes for social distancing, mask wearing and no crowd activities. Either we all need to do this, all the time, everywhere, or we don't. You don't get to pick and choose.
Black Lives Matter is a joke
Can I go to that same space and paint the equally racist sign Black Like Monkeys? I didn't think so.
I've been informed by my Black friends that BLM is not an organization, but rather a movement.
there's always massive clean-up needed after every Lefty protest,
...so having to wash black live's matter off the street is no shocker
Oh
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-07-22/philly-d-a-threatens-to-arrest-federal-agents
“It must be liberating to be such a horrible, unapologetic racist #KarenQueen that you can happily call 40 million Aftician-Americans, “destructive cop-hating Marxists”. Why? Because we say our Black Lives Matter equally as much as yours #WhiteSupremecistSaysWhat?”
~ Malcolm Nanace
.
“No Billy (Baldwin), BLM is a destructive, cop-hating Marxist movement that donates all its donations to leftist political campaigns. All lives matter. If you really wanted to save black lives, you’d stop funding Planned Parenthood who kills unborn black children 5 times more than white.” ~ Mindy R_______
Black Labs Matter. I miss Zeus.
Aren't brown lives worth mentioning?
If BLM does not soon cut out this shit, they will find that Brown lives don't give a shit about Black Lives. This has been known for more than 50 years going back to when Nat King Cole made a Spanish language album. It didn't sell. Compton was once black, now it is Hispanic. Blacks are 13% of the population, not 50% as they seem to think.
Blacks have been here for 300 years to hear them tell it. Every immigrant group has passed them by and bias has little to do with it.
sunsong wrote in support of the conservative position.
Did Xim know Xe was doing so?
Or answer my question, dipshit:
Which lives do you process do not matter?
All the white supremacist have to do is to embrace BLM moniker redefining the LM as “Literally Morons” and that should be the end of it OK
Sunsong: "Malcolm Nanace(sic)"
Malcolm Nance!!!
LOLOLOLOL
The biggest hoax collusion truther alive...except for Inga, Beijing Boy ARM and Howard!
Blacks are 13% of the population, not 50% as they seem to think.
I have several highly educated Black High school and middle school administrators as friends. When I told them that Black people are 13% and White people 75% of the nation's population they argued with me. Even when I showed them the data from the 2010 census they still argued with me. The shit really hit the fan when I told them that over 50% of all violent crime is committed by around 5% of the population (Black males 16-50), even with 500,000 Black men already locked up. Again the FBI crimes statistics didn't matter. Forget trying to get them to admit that it's actual White people who are killed more often by cops than they should be.
Some Lives Matter.
That's all I got and as far as I'll go.
Narr
Don't worry, most of you make the cut
New York's public employees, including the mayor, made time amidst all the shootings to paint a BLACK LIVES MATTER message on the street in front of Trump Tower. Shortly afterward, a white couple were arrested for throwing paint on it.
More recently, for three days in a row, an African American woman wearing a T-shirt that says "Jesus matters," has been dousing the message in black paint. Awkward.
Seems to me that any non-traffic-related message painted on a street is street art. It is not sacred, and it acts as an effective invitation for persons with different views to paint their own messages. Or did we repeal the First Amendment for people who don't agree with us?
What we have now is an uneducated population, including public officials, who believe, "I feel, therefore I am." They're acting on this idea, and they expect their feelings to be treated with more regard than other viewpoints or, indeed, the Greco-Judaic-Christian-Enlightenment values that led us to adopt the idea of free speech in the first place.
It's highly amusing, yes, but starkly grotesque.
Some Lives Matter.
It's not even "some, select, Black Lives Matter", but in practice it is "some, select Black Lives Matter". Their fallback to affirmative discrimination is one example of the progressive failure of affirmative action, and normalization of Pro-Choice religious dogma.
Only Black Lives Matter. FIFY
I'm actually surprised that the city in question responded this way merely because it's the law. there have been many examples lately when Democrat cities just ignored the law.
Post a Comment