General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsResponse to red dog 1 (Original post)
Name removed Message auto-removed
WhiskeyGrinder
(27,341 posts)hatrack
(65,337 posts)Alerting.
Response to hatrack (Reply #4)
Name removed Message auto-removed
JoseBalow
(9,888 posts)Xavier Breath
(6,719 posts)Well, "fear" is a bit strong.
JoseBalow
(9,888 posts)I was commenting about the irony of violating the rule about interfering with forum moderation, but here we are.
BannonsLiver
(21,005 posts)Ms. Toad
(38,893 posts)The first amendment first not give you the right to post signs on public (or someone else's) property. Just because you can say it doesn't mean you can take over someone else's property to say it.
That said, It would be up to the property owner, or real police, on public property, to remove it.
LeftInTX
(34,914 posts)It looks like it might be on private property. (My eyes are bad right now)
Possibly a city park?
Is this even in DC? Sign says Mount Pleasant.
Ms. Toad
(38,893 posts)So maybe they could remove it from property owned by the federal government. But they have no more authority to remove it from private property (without the consent of the owner) than anyone else has to put it there in the first place (without the consent of the owner).
LeftInTX
(34,914 posts)LOL...Street view shows the sign. That's hilarious!
