The posting of political signs is a long-standing ritual of free speech exercised in the United States.
But some believe the illegal removal of these signs will be benefit the other candidate.
It is a definite violation of the law to remove political signs from private property. Anyone stealing political signs may be charged with theft, damage to property, and trespassing. Local authorities must make sure any violation of political sign theft is pursued, especially in national election years.
This year the Clinton-vs.-Trump Race is producing a volatile, nasty campaign. Citizens supporting each candidate will be partisan and active. Both candidates for president generate passionate, vociferous responses. The Democrats will want to hold on to the Oval Office and the Republicans have nominated an entirely novel and unexpected candidate.
These facts alone make this election interesting and challenging: challenging for the proponents of each candidate as they campaign for their presidential candidate. It will not be in the best interest of any candidate to violate sign laws or freedom of speech. Numerous court cases have upheld the right to post political campaign signs given the rules established by state and local ordinances.
The first amendment to the Constitution clearly states that, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion…or abridging the freedom of speech.” In a Supreme Court case, City of Ladue vs. Gilleo, the court reaffirmed “that freedom of speech and the right to exercise control over one’s property should be free of interference.”
The removal and disappearance of Trump signs on private property is definitely a violation of law. So too would be the removal of Clinton signs. Citizens need to heed the rule of law in this matter, allowing for peaceful protests and other rights afforded each American even when there may be disagreement.
In this most contested election year, it is significantly important that all Americans demonstrate respect for the law, civility, and the rights of others. Freedom of speech was won with the American victory in the Revolutionary War. It has been paid for many times with Americans dying in the Civil War, World War I, and especially World War II. The battle supporting this right continues today with the threat of ISIS and other similarly misguided ideologies that do not recognize or allow free speech.
Yes, Donald Trump is a controversial candidate for president. His views may often seem out of the mainstream; however, he has touched a vein in the American electorate. There is obviously much angst at play in the electorate of the United States. Hillary Clinton, on the national stage for over 30 years, is a more known quantity.
As avid a political supporter as one may be, it is incumbent to respect others’ rights and political opinions to place political signs on one’s own private property.
Those removing political signs from private property should be charged by the local authorities and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.
Less of a response will only encourage disregard of one of our basic freedoms. As the election near, this nation needs to protect the rights of each and every citizen.
As American humorist Finley Peter Dunne quipped, “Politics ain’t beanbag.” Of course, all the players, Democrat or Republican, should play by the rules.
Removing political signs from private property is not one of the rules of the game.
Joe Diamond says
I would argue that political signs are not speech.
Speech is communication. The intent of the Constitutional framers was to assure that all speech was heard. Barking dogs do not get the same protection. All thought on all issues was and still is protected……all have a right to communicate their thoughts to others in hope of finding like minded persons. Find enough like minded persons and a law can be proposed and passed into usage. Find enough barking dogs and nothing will happen except perhaps more barking dogs arrive.
How are political signs different from barking dogs? Where is the communication from either group? What ideas are being presented?
Political signs are private property and are protected by law as such. They are not speech…..they say nothing……no communication……no idea transfer……they are visual static. Keep Kent County Scenic……Make America Great……..Nixon Agnew……..mumble, mumble, mumble…….All the way with JFK………zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz, burp!
My fellow Americans it is with heavy heart I must concede this election because all my signs were taken down the week before the election…..zzzzzzz
Joe
Bill Anderson says
” … Hillary Clinton, on the national stage for over 30 years, is a more known quantity.” Indeed, she is that. A dishonest, unethical harlot in my mind, and an entitled person whose turn it is in her mind. Who else stole a couple hundred thousand dollars worth of furnishings and art from the White House when Bill’s second term ended, only to be caught red-handed and required to bring the stuff back? One might suppose that episode, added to the landing under sniper fire on a tarmac in Bosnia, and then abandoning Americans s Secretary of Sate to perish in Benghazi should be more than sufficient to disqualify her for public office. She isn’t qualified to be dog-catcher.
Joe Diamond says
There ya go Bill,
What you said is an example of speech. You have cited details and reasoned to a conclusion. Others might kick your words around and arrive at other conclusions but your words are protected by the Constitution…….Congress shall make no law abridging your right to speak or publish your thoughts.
Political signs just are not informative. Because they say nothing they cannot be speech or even if printed cannot be protected journalism. If you are the one who is pulling up the signs better stop. They are private property.
Joe