Re: Man strikes back against Seaside California order with boat mural

On 5/13/2024 7:29 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

In article <v1u6on$3o2h8$2@dont-email.me>,
  moviePig <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
 

On 5/13/2024 6:36 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

In article <v1u2m7$3n232$2@dont-email.me>,
   moviePig <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
>

On 5/13/2024 5:04 PM, Rhino wrote:

On Mon, 13 May 2024 20:49:19 -0000 (UTC)
"Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>

I'm guessing that Seaside California is on the ocean and lots of
residents own boats?
>
A man had his boat on his property. He was told that municipal code
required him to install a 6 foot tall fence around it to comply with
code.
>
He built the fence then painted a realistic mural of a boat on the
fence.
>
Man strikes back against Seaside order with boat mural
by Torstein Rehn
KSBW-TV News Channel 8
Updated: 1:22 PM PDT May 13, 2024

>
I didn't see anything in the article explaining WHY he had to have a
fence around his boat. Is this a case of "Because we said so!" or is
there a sensible reason for the policy?
>
As for the fence he built, it's brilliant! We should all do that when
faced with unjust laws and rules: either fight them (if we can) or mock
them.

>
A mural of a boat is likely less of an eyesore than an actual boat.  And
if somehow it weren't, it probably runs afoul of other community codes.

>
But community codes are subordinate to the 1st Amendment. A boat isn't
speech but a mural of a boat *is* speech and community codes will have
to do a lot of heavy lifting to overcome the law's heavy presumption in
favor of protecting speech.

>
In this instance, the mural would seem to be "speech" only to the extent
that it argues against the ordinance it's responding to.

 
Doesn't matter why it's speech or what it's trying to say. The
government isn't allowed to restrict speech based on content or the
speaker's message.

 
Your 3-year-old's random finger-painting isn't "speech".