but he kept them up, believing any resulting fine would be $20 or $30. After he was cited Sept. 20, he was surprised to find out the fine was $300, an amount he considers excessive.

Quinly said he understands why cities restrict signs, but he believes political signs should be less restrictive than others, not more.


Translation: This law should apply to everyone else but me.

I agree with the law, Just not when it applies to me.

damn log_jammin let me say the same thing as you.

/I'm a dumbass

Dixierecon5150
damn log_jammin let me say the same thing as you.
/I'm a dumbass

You sound pretty damn smart to me!

Yea, me smart log said so.

The ACLU is one of those funny organizations that is rather uncompromising in it's beliefs. It will go to an extreme to protect individual rights, regardless of the circumstances, and even when it contradicts itself or ends up looking like an ass.

At least, that's how it is supposed to work. They'll even defend slimeballs who have the potential for a valid point because they don't want precident screwing over innocent people down the road.

*Snort*

*grunt*

*touches obelisk*



/A BIG obelisk!

Perpetual fappage I'll tell ya...

The submitter seems to be making the point that the ACLU is playing both sides of the issue. But actually the ACLU only provided the town some input, the ACLU didn't write the law or choose how to enforce it.

But the irony is still there. Because the ACLU should only defend *MY* civil rights, not anyone else's.

Ummmmm, is this like the arsonist who volunteers as a fireman?

ACLU: Americans who Can't Understand the Law.

That would be ACUL.

nice

DOIA: Dyslexic Orangutans for Acronym Interpretation

Orangutan

Farker who can't understand spell. Hint: it's ACLU. LU, not UL.

Ouch! 0wn3d by a lemur

Self-fulfilling prophecy surrenders?

So an Orangutan, a punishingLemur and a NewHampster walk into a thread, right? And the Orangutan says...

2005-12-26 02:00:32 PM Orangutan

ACLU: Americans who Can't Understand the Law.

For lysdexic Americans.

So this guy puts up signs that are too large per a town ordinance, is warned that they are too large, purposely keeps the signs up, then when he gets the fine this suddenly becomes a free speech issue?

There's no indication that he got the fine because of the content of the signs. This isn't a free speech issue. The guy could have put the same message on smaller signs and had no issues whatsoever. He deserves his fine.

I always come to Fark for hot lemur-on-orangutan action.

Of course, to some the ACLU is a cul... but that is neither here nor there.

While I was trying to come up with something witty to say about orangutangs attempt at being humorous I was bested by digidorm. Good thing for refresh.

Hey everyone, let's play the game where we find something we disagree with politically and pick on the smallest flaw we can find but extrapolate it into an abomination that decries everything about it! It's easy and everyone can play!

/insert a quote about the special olympics here

Laugh all you want.

All I know is that the "ACLU" made this guy in the town where my Dad lives cover up his mailbox because it was painted like the stars and stripes.
That doesn't sound too "American" or "civil" to me. Maybe I'm just an idiot and this is the USSR, hmmm?

/grammer police, huh?
//sheesh.

Based on the headline alone, I'm with Gosling.

Orangutan - LOL! You may be right...

/Once again, didn't RTFA

Damn,log_jammin pitched an ace.....premier post and won the thread.....nice work

\golf clap

Orangutan: grammer police, huh?

grammar

sorry, had to

2005-12-26 02:08:24 PM Orangutan

Laugh all you want.

All I know is that the "ACLU" made this guy in the town where my Dad lives cover up his mailbox because it was painted like the stars and stripes.
That doesn't sound too "American" or "civil" to me.

That sounds like an urban legend to me.

Maybe I'm just an idiot and this is the USSR, hmmm?

You could be right, there.

Orangutan
All I know is that the "ACLU" made this guy in the town where my Dad lives cover up his mailbox because it was painted like the stars and stripes.

I would love to see a source supporting this. And it may be completely true, but I would expect the ACLU to be far more likely to defend the guy's right to paint his mailbox as he sees fit, rather than get involved in such an anti-freedom PR sinkhole.

Bowen grammar

sorry, had to


I didn't know FARK was so extreme. Sorry my "grammar" school must have let me down.

control
The submitter seems to be making the point that the ACLU is playing both sides of the issue. But actually the ACLU only provided the town some input, the ACLU didn't write the law or choose how to enforce it.

It doesn't even say if the town followed the ACLU's suggestions. Just that the ACLU had talked with them about the policy.

"...noting the latest version of the ordinance was drafted with the ACLU's input"

This doesn't mean that the ACLU is contradicting itself. It means that the town asked for the ACLU's opinion before drafting the law, the ACLU said "We demand unlimited free-speech," and the town took that into account, possibly redrafting the law to more liberally allow for speech. The ACLU, however, is still unsatisfied with their level of compromise, and therefore has defended this man.

There is no hypocrisy here. A lot of you don't appreciate the ACLU half as much as you should. They're currently the best hope we have of riding out the Bush Administration until we can get anyone else in the White House.

Orangutan: All I know is that the "ACLU" made this guy in the town where my Dad lives cover up his mailbox because it was painted like the stars and stripes.

doubt it - what's the name of the town?

Toss this one in the "attention whore" file. It seems to be working too.

The ACLU supports Hail-Eris!'s right to write that.

digigormI would love to see a source supporting this

Here you go smart guy:

Simeon v. Alan 539 US 558 (2003).

Do a Lexis search, there's probably more. I wish the ACLU would stop the small potatoes stuff and start helping the people who need it. I mean sheesh. It's getting rediculous.

"They'll even defend slimeballs who have the potential for a valid point because they don't want precident screwing over innocent people down the road."

Translation: They're out for a buck and they'll use well meaning civil rights to get it.

My favorite ACLU cause is the right for accused criminals to look guilty by refusing to offer a DNA sample.

Freakman

That was a FI-Slamma-Jamana put down! Hells yes.

/just what I WAS THINKING

So I guess since the ACLU provided some vague input on the law they're the ones to blame, eh? We could play this game all night. And we probably will. That said, the guy lives in Prairie Village. He probably has to make sure his bricks are all a constant shade of brown on his house or he'll be in violation of something.

Please don't feed the Orangutans trolls.

Orangutan - The ACLU couldn't possibly have standing to sue someone over a mailbox. The most they could do is provide legal assistance to a neighbor, etc. who already wanted to sue over the mailbox. They certainly couldn't order anything - a court would. Even if you granted these points, the entire story sounds like total bullshiat

Why don't you provide some evidence for your claim or stop making shiat up?

539 US 558 is the cite for:
LAWRENCE et al. v. TEXAS
Responding to a reported weapons disturbance in a private residence, Houston police entered petitioner Lawrences apartment and saw him and another adult man, petitioner Garner, engaging in a private, consensual sexual act. Petitioners were arrested and convicted of deviate sexual intercourse in violation of a Texas statute forbidding two persons of the same sex to engage in certain intimate sexual conduct. In affirming, the State Court of Appeals held, inter alia, that the statute was not unconstitutional under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The court considered Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U.S. 186, controlling on that point.

I think Orangutan meant "male box" instead of "mailbox."

/music

They'll fight for freedom, wherever there's trouble, ACLU is there ... ACLU ... A real American hero ... ACLU is there.

/end music
//begin lawsuit to defend Cobra's civil liberties

2005-12-26 02:18:35 PM Orangutan

Here you go smart guy:

Simeon v. Alan 539 US 558 (2003).

Funny, I googled "539 US 558 (2003)" and got this:

http://law.onecle.com/ussc/539/539us558.html

/couldn't find "simeon v. alan" anywhere

Um, Orangutan, 539 US 558 (2003) is Lawrence vs. Texas, which is the well-known case that eventually overturned sodomy laws. Has nothing to do with mailbox designs at all. Would you like to come up with a legitimate legal reference, or would you like to apologize for lying?

Orangutan: Simeon v. Alan 539 US 558 (2003).

lawrence v texas?

boy, don't turn a buncha farkers loose on t3h google - if only their were some way we could make money with this.