Pretty much a non-story. Cranky racist woman doesn't want Hispanics in her house. Neighbors don't like it but can't do anything about it. Life goes on.

Who the hell wants to squat in that hovel?

"Cranky" is getting upset when a dog craps in your yard. She's just a racist bitch.

I'm as liberal as it gets but I don't think this falls (or should fall) under first amendment protections. Would it be ok for her to have a burning cross in her front yard as well?

I'm currently racking my brain thinking about some of the negative implications of barring this woman from posting signs on her property.

>> ^JiggaJonson:
I'm as liberal as it gets but I don't think this falls (or should fall) under first amendment protections.


Doesn't sound like you're all that liberal to me. Assholes, too, have the right to free speech.

>> ^JiggaJonson:
I'm as liberal as it gets but I don't think this falls (or should fall) under first amendment protections. Would it be ok for her to have a burning cross in her front yard as well?
I'm currently racking my brain thinking about some of the negative implications of barring this woman from posting signs on her property.


Yes it would. Burning flag too.

Actually the supreme court has ruled on a ban that Virginia has on cross burning and found the ban to be uncconstitutional but only because it covered cross burning in general. Regulations could be only established to bar that specific act if the cross burning was done as a means of racial intimidation.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/04/07/scotus.cross.burning/

"We conclude that while a state consistent with the First Amendment may ban cross burning carried out with the intent to intimidate, the provision in the Virginia statute treating any cross burning as prima facie evidence of intent to intimidate renders the statute unconstitutional," the ruling said.

This seems to be a clear cut case of a person motivated by racial intimidation and while, again, I'm all for the rights of the individual, those rights should only extend as far as they dont infringe on the rights of others.

This would get taken down in the UK for laws against 'inciting hatred' - laws that are unfortunately open to abuse.

For me this is a case of 100% disagreeing with what she has to say but reluctantly agreeing that she has the right to say it.

Huh. Well, then the intent of it is important. I'm allowed to burn a cross for the hell of it, but as a means for racial intimidation it's not constitutional... that's gotta be hard to differentiate.

What about burning flags, swastikas and stuff like that? I would think that as long as it is on her own property it would not be possible to interfere.

>> ^JiggaJonson:
Actually the supreme court has ruled on a ban that Virginia has on cross burning and found the ban to be uncconstitutional but only because it covered cross burning in general. Regulations could be only established to bar that specific act if the cross burning was done as a means of racial intimidation.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/04/07/scotus.cross.burning/
"We conclude that while a state consistent with the First Amendment may ban cross burning carried out with the intent to intimidate, the provision in the Virginia statute treating any cross burning as prima facie evidence of intent to intimidate renders the statute unconstitutional," the ruling said.
This seems to be a clear cut case of a person motivated by racial intimidation and while, again, I'm all for the rights of the individual, those rights should only extend as far as they dont infringe on the rights of others.

Why is this newsworthy?

^ The burning flag doesn't give a rat's patoot. Neither should we.

what a *terrible womnan

Adding video to channels (Terrible) - requested by geo321.

She wound up on the news... successful troll is successful

I wonder if there would be such outrage if the sign said something like "Men, keep out".

She seems to be confusing all hispanics with illegal immigrants. Either way, she isn't really doing anything wrong. She's allowed to choose who can come onto her property for whatever reason she wants. It might be a little different if the sign said "Hispanics, I'm coming to kill you".

It's free speech as all racism and bigotry should be. Burning crosses, flags, swastikas, David's shields, pentagrams, copies of The God Delusion and effigies of presidents, past or present, should all be protected (aside from applicable fire ordinances).

ahhh shit.. thats like 30 minutes from me.

^Why am I not surprised...?

There is a line when expression is meant to threaten, intimidate, and incite violence. That's why burning crosses don't qualify as protected speech.

*fear

Adding video to channels (Fear) - requested by blankfist.