A Lakeland woman was awarded over $30,000 after filing a lawsuit claiming her First Amendment rights were being violated by the city when she was fined multiple times for a political sign in her front yard.
The problem is that the government officials who tried to infringe upon her rights didn't pay a single penny of this settlement out of their own pocket; their ignorance/disregard of the law hurt the local taxpayers, but not themselves!!!
Every town has legal counsel and either the town attorney failed to properly advise or the town ordinance was passed over his objections. Regardless 100% taxpayers bear the cost of misdeeds by officials (politicians & LE).
@@mase7557 Well ya!, they didn't violate her in their unofficial capacity...🤯Do you think a nonpublic official can violate your civil rights? The reason judges can't be sued is because they have granted themselves qualified immunity. For example...Walmart can not violate your civil rights. You personally can't violate my rights. Make sense?
Yeah, why should my property taxes go up because some idiot county employee thought they could bully her into taking down this sign? Make these morons pay for their own bullying campaign out of their own pocket!!!
I think the real problem is with the legislators who passed the unconstitutional ordinance. I'm not sure that a local judge can simply ignore the local ordnance even if they realize it violates the US Constitution.
@@twistedpixel756 You are conflating the ideas of supremacy of laws with jurisdiction of a judge. While it is obviously true that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, usually it is the US Supreme Court that rules on Constitutional law, or at least an Appellate Court. The question is whether a local judge can rule that a local statute is unconstitutional. Maybe they can or maybe they cannot. Do you have an actual case where they did so?
@@XJWill1 the supreme court has already ruled on this, a number of times. It's well and truly established. the judge should have denied the prosecutor and let them appeal it, not the other way around. And lets not forget, this wasn't the judge being forced into his opinion, he told her he would jail her if she appeared in his court again regarding a sign. This was his legal opinion.
@@twistedpixel756 Again, you are conflating law supremacy and judicial jurisdiction. The local judge was ruling based on the local statute. The real problem is that the local statute, passed by the local legislators, was unconstitutional. I do not know if a local judge can declare a local statute unconstitutional with respect to the US Constitution. All the cases I have heard about like this were settled at a higher-level court.
I'm not political, I choose neither side because what you said is true! They're all crooks and only care about their money, houses, cars, yachts, private jets, vacations...
I had a neighbor who had lots of political signs in his yard. One was large. A different neighbor complained to the police. The police said they could not do anything, she has free speech on her property.
@@phillipvelednitskiy6881 Land of the free, if you have enough money, time, and connections to fight things like this WHILE ALSO having a judge that will rule rightfully and not be paid off or make a ruling based on their own beliefs which happens far too much, just like the first ones in this case did, until she had the resources to take it further.
@@phillipvelednitskiy6881 Where did I say anything about anarchy being a superior system??? I simply said why it's not actually "land of the free" and you got me saying that we should have anarchy from THAT?! LMAO
That's our tax dollars paying for those government employees to violate civil rights and for the settlement. Why doesn't the $30k come from the judge that doesn't understand basic constitutional rights?!
Because the taxpayers gave him the job and said they recognize him as competent.....so when he's not..... Taxpayers pay.....so they can feel a sting and hire better people or keep getting away with it as long as they pay up ....
So her sign hurt somebody's feelings The city tried to scare her And now the taxpayer is paying her 30k and the person who was butthurt faces 0 consequences?
Nevada has the best presidential option: NONE OF THESE CANDIDATES. I wrote that in in 2016 and 2020 and will again this year. Too bad that option isnt on the ballot in all 50 states. It would win in a landslide.
@@Mega-P71 To be fair, the propaganda is very thorough. Even knowing those who run the country/world are NOT those elected, (if Biden as POTUS doesn’t illustrate that fact… what will?) I can find myself getting irritated at the overt editing and spin the media puts out there that influences SO MANY people to a particular “side.” But then I have to remind myself it is all just show to keep us believing in that the system is as it was at America’s inception. Of course, that also could’ve been a deeper part of the long con game as well, but I still prefer to believe intentions were honorable by several involved.
@@Mega-P71 I agree. They are victims of a mob mentality. Most of them don't even understand the policies of their candidates. They just think that any person on the opposite side of the political spectrum is automatically the enemy. It is really more akin to a religious war than anything now.
Did that city really think they'd have a single constitutional leg to stand on by doing that?! And that judge should be fired for attempting to punish her for her right to free speech.
The only thing I find offensive is her egregious misuse of punctuation. The apostrophe goes BEFORE the 'Em, not after. It replaces the T and the H in them. English 101.
I was looking for this comment! Amazing that people spend time and money to make a sign that has misspelling and improper punctuation. I do agree with the sentiment of this sign though!
The only obscene part of that sign is the apostrophe on the incorrect side of 'em. The message of the sign? Absolutely on point, and probably the most common view of this election cycle.
Punctuation is obviously not her strong point. If you know you're not good with it, don't put it out there in public and let everyone know. Kind of keep that to yourself...
@@LazloNQI've just had this discussion with a friend, ideally that would be the case, but it's not always possible since there's a good chance she is 100% confident about her punctuation and doesn't think she has any issues, or yea she probably wouldn't have done it
@@allemander”law of the land” is a legal term. It refers to all of the laws in force within a country or region, including statute and case law. It appears in the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution…
@@williamthomas4617 The CONstitution, is a man-made, immoral, authoritarian document that establishes a ruling class designed to oppress and enslave everyone. Wake up.
@@williamthomas4617 Ain’t it a shame. The CONstitution (immoral, oppressive, authoritarian document) and the censorship here that instantly removed my last follow up comment to you.
True and it's even worse. The party out of power makes the party in power look bad every way they can, like by raising prices, and we are caught in the middle.
@@rongarza9488 They're really just one party, putting on a show, like WWE. “The argument that the two parties should represent opposed ideals and policies... is a foolish idea. Instead, the two parties should be almost identical, so that the American people can throw the rascals out at any election without leading to any profound or extensive shifts in policy. Then it should be possible to replace it, every four years if necessary, by the other party which will be none of these things but will still pursue, with new vigor, approximately the same basic policies.” - Carroll Quigley (one of Bill Clinton's mentors....Bill Clinton, BFF of Trump/Epstein, and husband of Trump's cousin Hillary)
The 1st Amendment prevails in the face of subversive rulers, including a judge. Eff the King! Eff the King's minions for trying to stifle freedom of speech and expression! The next voice doesn't have to yet come in play... yet, which is a good thing - The 2nd Amendment. That one is a hard one to ignore. Before it was conceived as the second amendment, it was heard around the world and a new nation was eventually born.
I hugely applaud this woman and at the same time have much scorn for the Lakeland judge who was dumb enough to basically say there is not free speech in America despite the case law to the contrary. That judge needs to be investigated and reeducated on 1A freedoms. That woman deserves every penny of that settlement.
You don't need case law...the Constitution clearly states that NO law may be passed that abridges the rights guaranteed in it....they do it anyway... because it costs them nothing....and We the People must use time and money to get these ordinances taken off the books. Judges should KNOW this.
@lead4you Trump is in it for Trump. The kind of people that love Trump are the kind of people he hates the most. That's funny a convicted felon knows about Law And Order
@@jerometaperman7102 Probably because Mr. Peanut is 99 and on a machine to keep his vital functions going (another Awful President who created FEMA among many other Government expanding Laws).
It’s good to see that there are some people who are not caught up with “picking a side”. Most people hate one candidate and love the other when both are completely incompetent.
@@moonshoes11 , Wrong. Kids have the right to play outside and be in public. So do adults who don’t want to see obscenity. Rights come with responsibilities. We the people have the right to restrict speech as long as it’s content-neutral restrictions. The Supreme Court says so.
Laws are never removed from the books. If a law is struck down by a higher court, that is noted by an asterisk or some other mark to note than you have to look at the end of the chapter. For example, the sheriff of a county in Arizona was enforcing a law against couples that weren’t married. This was 1995 to 2005. The Arizona law that he used was struck down in 1972 by SCOTUS. There was an asterisk by the title of the law. It wasn’t until almost eight years later that a lawyer noticed that and read the footnotes at the end of the chapter. He brought it to court and showed the judge. The cases were all dismissed with prejudice. There are laws on the books from the 1830s that have been struck down for more than a century. They are there waiting if the Supreme Court changes their mind.
@@richardbeckenbaugh1805 I didn’t know that. It makes it so they can’t try and make the same law later. Maybe they should put a line through it so public servants can see it better. Make it more noticeable.
An actual violation of First Amendment rights. If she was living in a HOA neighborhood and they opposed to this, then she'd be out of luck but the local Govt cannot force her to remove it.
Absolutely mind numbing that the city, and even worse the judge let it get this far. Judge needs to be investigated and most likely sent to jail for not knowing the bill of rights
No, it’s not okay. Which is why the city should appeal all the way to the Supreme Court. Current SCOTUS precedents are in the city’s favor. The state can prohibit all public displays of profanity, obscenity, and vulgarity in accordance with community standards as long as the speech prohibited is content-neutral. Which Lakeland’s ordinance is.
@@triggeringantimaskkarenswi3619 , The state has always had this authority. The Supreme Court says so. Answer me this: Why can the FCC fine television & radio networks/stations for airing profanity, obscenity, and vulgarity?
The amount of unconstitutional ordinances in this country is astounding... The only way you get them rescinded is to make the pay, like she did... It makes you wonder where the lawyers these towns and cities hire to review the legality of their ordinances got their law degrees from...
@@susan9498 Well, maybe the folks who complained to the city should now pitch in and collect $30K, instead of burdening the taxpaying public with the consequences of their stupidity.
poor americans basing on who they'll vote on who they don't want to win rather than voting someone because you think their policies are better than the other candidates policies.
@@antoniodelaugger9236 their policies are what make our choices pathetic thank you. Guess your country is better eh, ha I'm sure yours is so much better.
should be a none of the above option on all ballots. if majority makes that selection then the candidates are tossed out and new candidates are chosen.
I appreciate the sentiment and respect her right to free speech. But did she really have to use that language? Personally, I use that word fairly often but I wouldn’t disrespect my neighbors and community by displaying it publicly. Civic engagement is great but this is just attention seeking.
How many of these commenters have no problem with “f**k” being on a sign for people of all ages to see, but wouldn’t stand for someone standing within earshot SAYING it?
I am sure the local judge that threatened her with jail time is going to publicly admit he was wrong, and agree to take a Constitutional law class as a gesture of good will toward the community he serves... LOL
I agree with the ruling as well. But is the public vulgarity really necessary? How is our country/society being improved by intentional vulgarity and/or obnoxiousness?
How can any city official not know the first amendment of the United States Constitution they swear an oath to uphold the Constitution do they not read it. 😮
My comment, "I have to agree with the sign. F both the parties, the people who got us into this mess and not the people who will get us out," was censored. It's not what you say; it's what you believe that evil Google doesn't like.
I don’t understand that they are so worried about the children, what they read, what they hear and what they see??? What about all the children that see this??? I don’t get the laws anymore!!!
Trumpets are weird cringe grandmas lol. A lady said to me at my retail job about her messiah Donald Trump HE IS THE ONLY ONE WHO CAN SAVE US. From what? He didn’t save anybody from Covid when he told them to inject bleach. It’s just so cringe.
