Re: Some bicycle paths...

On 7/26/2024 3:09 PM, AMuzi wrote:

On 7/26/2024 1:49 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:

On 7/26/2024 9:14 AM, AMuzi wrote:

On 7/25/2024 9:57 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:

On 7/25/2024 3:27 PM, AMuzi wrote:

On 7/25/2024 1:01 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:

>
Purposely irritating others is fun to people who are childish and obnoxious.
>

>
And yet, autos with political candidate stickers are common.

>
Interesting viewpoint. So expressing approval for a candidate in an election is childish and obnoxious? Really?
>
I see many more right wing examples than left wing examples. And when it comes to obscene examples, it's not even close.
>
>

>
"> I see many more right wing examples"
>
>
That's because you take offense at them and blithely disregard the left wing stickers. Perfectly normal response BTW, nothing wrong with that but see it as it is.

>
I know what confirmation bias is, thank you. I suppose this fine side point could be settled by actual counts. You know, data.
>
But the fundamental point is that candidate stickers are not necessarily intended to irritate others, as you implied. Most are intended to express support for a candidate, just as similar ones saying "Vote for the [police, or fire, school or library] levy."
>
And they've been ruled a first amendment right.
>

 Excellent analysis.
Now just extend your argument one Amendment further...

OK. For parallels, campaign signs are subject to reasonable regulation. There are reasonable limits on size and placement - for example, you can't have one that's overly large placed where (perhaps by obstructing views of traffic) it would put people at unreasonable risk. You can't even exceed a city's ordinance on maximum size of sign. You also can't disrupt most non-political public gatherings (like church services or public classrooms) by carrying around a large sign and shouting "Vote for Trump!" All that is true despite the fact that campaign signs are not designed to kill people.
In other words, the courts have long endorsed reasonable limits on first amendment communication. That's probably in part because there is no group spending heavy lobbying money for the benefit of sign manufacturers.
Now how can we extend similar reasonable rules to devices whose design objective is to kill people? Can we go back to, say, the fabled Old West, where it was often illegal to bring one's gun into town?
--
- Frank Krygowski