Religious Commercial or Political Personal Signal Flags at Marina slip

[thinwater]

Originally Posted by Shrew

I've never seen one being flown.

Have you seen a Confederate flag flown? Was the intent historic or hateful (perhaps veiled)?

[CaptTom]

Originally Posted by NorthernMac

I rather walk past at some dorky Disney flag or whatever government hero du jour flag, than live in anything resembling a HOA.

I'm with you there! I don't let flags bother me, especially those intended to incite. All it does is show the true character of the person flying it. And don't get me started about HOA's!

Where I disagree is considering this a first amendment issue. We're talking about private property, first of all. A club can set any rules they want. Don't like it? You're free to join another club (or a cult of personality, if you prefer.)

I think most municipalities also have rules about when you can post political campaign signs, at least on their public property. There are always limits to "free" speech.

[NorthernMac]

Originally Posted by CaptTom

I'm with you there! I don't let flags bother me, especially those intended to incite. All it does is show the true character of the person flying it. And don't get me started about HOA's!

Where I disagree is considering this a first amendment issue. We're talking about private property, first of all. A club can set any rules they want. Don't like it? You're free to join another club (or a cult of personality, if you prefer.)

I think most municipalities also have rules about when you can post political campaign signs, at least on their public property. There are always limits to "free" speech.

A private club, yeah, basically a boat HOA, you joined eyes wide open, their club their rules

But a muni? Like built with tax dollars? Not a chance, and I’d fight that everyday and twice on Sundays.

[nortonscove]

Originally Posted by a64pilot

Never happen, people want to be offended. The they get to act all self righteous. Last year I flew the Ensign on my boat and that offended some, This year I’m flying the Ensign and directly under it, the Retired US Army flag.
Now it seems more are offended.

However the gay couple that fly their rainbow flag are considered brave and courageous by the ones that I offend by my US Ensign.

Go figure

Wow. Just wow. That's quite the stretch there. Hope you limbered up cuz it's easy to pull something other than my leg with that comparison.

[nortonscove]

Originally Posted by boatpoker

None of these personal "statement" flags offend me. In fact I appreciate the warning as there are certain types of people I would prefer to avoid.

Winner! Best answer so far. Flags have always served to communicate and warn.

[NorthernMac]

Originally Posted by nortonscove

Wow. Just wow. That's quite the stretch there. Hope you limbered up cuz it's easy to pull something other than my leg with that comparison.

I’d say his experience is more the norm than the exception, especially in deep blue states.

[CaptTom]

Originally Posted by NorthernMac

A private club, yeah, basically a boat HOA, you joined eyes wide open, their club their rules

But a muni? Like built with tax dollars? Not a chance, and I’d fight that everyday and twice on Sundays.

OK, we're getting closer to agreement.

There may be some daylight there, however, depending on how the municipality handles other public spaces. There may be limits on the kind of expression which is appropriate for things like parks, city hall, playgrounds, schools, the courthouse, the police station, the public library and even the roadside. All built and paid for by tax dollars.

I think the point is, as long as the rules apply to everyone, and not just those who someone happens to disagree with, they're not infringing anyone's rights.

[NorthernMac]

Originally Posted by CaptTom

OK, we're getting closer to agreement.

There may be some daylight there, however, depending on how the municipality handles other public spaces. There may be limits on the kind of expression which is appropriate for things like parks, city hall, playgrounds, schools, the courthouse, the police station, the public library and even the roadside. All built and paid for by tax dollars.

I think the point is, as long as the rules apply to everyone, and not just those who someone happens to disagree with, they're not infringing anyone's rights.

You can’t limit my free speech in a public space, think there are tons on caselaw on that one.

And even if there wasn’t, too many gave too much to hand my rights over, basically bow to, a mayor...which is like one step up from a PTA president or something lol

[winschwab]

What about restrictring SIZE? I live across from an offending marina. I like to get along with my neighbors, and don't intend to do anything about it, but I wish there was a uniform policy against those monster flags waving in my face-WAY larger than any American flag flown on any of the boats.

[transmitterdan]

Originally Posted by NorthernMac

You can’t limit my free speech in a public space, think there are tons on caselaw on that one.

And even if there wasn’t, too many gave too much to hand my rights over, basically bow to, a mayor...which is like one step up from a PTA president or something lol

Actually the government can. There are electioneering free zones around public polling places, for example. And in public meetings a person’s 1A rights do not permit them to disrupt the meeting. Civility is a requirement to exercise your 1A rights. Not that everyone acts civilly but it is a requirement nonetheless. So free speech requires some restraint else anarchy results.

[Brewgyver]

Originally Posted by Floatinghome

Please think back to the last president's time in office. I recall seeing his banner fly everywhere! I didn't vote for him either time but I put up with these banners for eight years without complaint. This is FIRST amendment territory. When the otherside wins you dont have to like it but if you love our country you better not complain about someone exercising the right to freely express their opinion just as you did. This is what I and many of my family served in the military to defend.

Same here, exactly, service included. Quite a slew of flags at my marina, and I figured it was all in good fun, and a legitimate expression. What pissed me off, after not going to the boat for several weeks, I found that the flag I had hoisted was gone. And it wasn't due to failure of the flag halyard.

[Go Wildcats]

Wouldn't it be easier to not be easily offensive?

Originally Posted by Tellie

Wouldn't it be easier if we just weren't so easily offended.

[Tellie]

Originally Posted by nortonscove

Wow. Just wow. That's quite the stretch there. Hope you limbered up cuz it's easy to pull something other than my leg with that comparison.

I've never known a64pilot to be one to stretch the truth.

[Montanan]

Originally Posted by NorthernMac

You can’t limit my free speech in a public space, think there are tons on caselaw on that one.

And even if there wasn’t, too many gave too much to hand my rights over, basically bow to, a mayor...which is like one step up from a PTA president or something lol

Well actually limitations and prohibitions that are content-neutral and not content based are legal.

Examples - City of Clearwater

Signs Attached to or Painted on Piers. Seawalls - Prohibited
(Other than Official Regulatory or Warning Signs)

WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that signs attached to or painted on piers and seawalls, other than official regulatory or warning signs, detract from the aesthetic environment and that such signs conflict with the purposes of Division 18, such as enhancing the attractiveness and economic well-being of the city as a place to live, vacation and conduct business, and preserving and enhancing the natural and scenic characteristics of the City of Clearwater as a waterfront community;

WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the City of St. Petersburg’s sign code that contained a similar prohibition on signs attached to or painted on piers or seawalls (St. Petersburg’s Code at § 16-671(9), prohibiting “signs attached to or painted on piers or seawalls, unless otherwise authorized, such as official regulatory or warning signs approved by the City Manager”) was determined to be content-neutral and not content-based in Granite State Outdoor Advertising, Inc. v. City of St. Petersburg, Fla., 2002 WL 34558956 (M.D.Fla. 2002),aff’d in part and rev’d in part, 348 F.3d 1278, 1281-1282 (11th Cir. 2003), cert. denied, 541 U.S.
1086 (2004), where a de novo appellate review confirmed that the ordinance was content-neutral based in large part upon the government’s interest in regulating speech and the St. Petersburg Code at § 16-667(b)(2) that stated that its enactment was to promote uniformity, preserve aesthetics and foster safety] and that relied upon the precedent of Ward v. Rock Against Racism, 491 U.S. 781, 791 (1989);

WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that signs painted on piers and seawalls were among the examples of prohibited sign types identified in the study, Enhancing the Visual Environment Through Sign Regulations, Volume One, at Section 3, Engelhardt, Hammer & Associates, Inc. (2002), that such prohibition supported the purposes of the City of Clearwater’s sign regulations;

WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the district court in the Granite-Clearwater decision noted that former Section 3-1803 prohibited twenty-five different types of signs (such as signs attached to or painted on piers and seawalls, other than official regulatory or warning signs), and that Article 3 in general was not content-based [see GraniteClearwater at 1334];

Signs in or upon Any River, Bay Lake, or Other Body of Water - Prohibited

WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that signs in or upon any river, bay, lake, or other body of water, detract from the aesthetic environment and that such signs conflict with the purposes of Division 18, such as enhancing the attractiveness and economic well-being of the city as a place to live, vacation and conduct business, and preserving and enhancing the natural and scenic characteristics of the City of Clearwater as a waterfront community;

WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the City of St. Petersburg’s sign code that contained a similar prohibition on signs in or upon any river, bay, lake, or other body of water (St. Petersburg’s Code at § 16-671(10), prohibiting “signs in or upon any river, bay, lake, or other body of water, unless otherwise authorized by the City Manager, such as official regulatory or warning signs”) was determined to be content-neutral and not content based in Granite State Outdoor Advertising, Inc. v. City of St. Petersburg, Fla., 2002 WL 34558956 (M.D.Fla. 2002), aff’d in part and rev’d in part, 348 F.3d 1278, 1281-1282 (11th Cir. 2003), cert. denied, 541 U.S. 1086 (2004), where a de novo appellate review confirmed that the ordinance was content-neutral based in large part upon the government’s interest in regulating speech and the St. Petersburg Code at § 16-667(b)(2) that stated that its enactment was to promote uniformity, preserve aesthetics and foster safety and that relied upon the precedent of Ward v. Rock Against Racism, 491 U.S. 781, 791 (1989);

Balloons, Cold Air Inflatables, Streamers, Pennants - Prohibited

WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the Center for Governmental Responsibility’s 1989 Model Code contained a proposed land development regulation that would prohibit balloons, streamers, pennants, and other wind-activated sign types, at Section 10.02.02.H., specifically prohibiting “Signs, commonly referred to as wind signs, consisting of one or more banners, flags, pennants, ribbons, spinners, streamers or captive balloons, or other objects or material fastened in such a manner as to move upon being subjected to pressure by wind,” as a prohibition that would further governmental purposes of aesthetics and otherwise;

WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that cold air inflatable signs were identified among the examples of prohibited sign types identified in the study, Enhancing the Visual Environment Through Sign Regulations, Volume One, at Section 3, Engelhardt, Hammer & Associates, Inc. (2002), and that the prohibition of the same was supported by the purposes set forth in the City of Clearwater’s sign regulations;

WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the City of St. Petersburg’s sign code that contained a similar prohibition on cold air inflatables, banners and pennants (St. Petersburg’s Code at § 16-671(5), prohibiting “pennants, streamers, cold air inflatables, and banners, except for special occasions for a limited time and frequency as permitted in sections 16-712(1)h. and 16-713”), and a similar prohibition on inflatable devices that are tethered and do not touch the ground (St. Petersburg’s Code at § 16-671(6)), were determined to be contentneutral and not content-based in Granite State Outdoor Advertising, Inc. v. City of St. Petersburg, Fla., 2002 WL 34558956 (M.D.Fla. 2002), aff’d in part and rev’d in part, 348 F.3d 1278, 1281-1282 (11th Cir. 2003), cert. denied, 541 U.S. 1086 (2004), where a de novo appellate review confirmed that the ordinance was content-neutral based in large part upon the government’s interest in regulating speech and the St. Petersburg’s Code that stated at § 16-667(b)(2) that its enactment was to promote uniformity, preserve aesthetics and foster safety and that relied upon the precedent of Ward v. Rock Against Racism, 491 U.S. 781, 791 (1989);

WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that it is appropriate to prohibit balloons, cold air inflatables, streamers and pennants, with limited exceptions for their use on public property under the limited circumstances set forth in the current Code at Section 3-1805.V. [to be amended and renumbered to Section 3-1806.R.], because such wind-activated devices utilized as signs to draw attention from passing motorists are generally distracting in nature, serve to degrade community aesthetics, and are inconsistent with the general principles and purposes of Division 18;

WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that the district court in the Granite-Clearwater decision addressed current Section 3-1803.B.’s prohibition on “[b]alloons, cold air inflatable, streamers, and pennants, except where allowed as governmental and public purpose signs for special events of limited time and frequency, as approved by the city manager or the city commission,” and the court struck Section 3-1803.B. upon determining that the distinction between “governmental and public purpose signs” and “non-governmental and nonpublic purpose signs” for such special events lacked the necessary reasonable fit as it relates to furthering the governmental interests in aesthetics and traffic safety, especially insofar as the prohibition’s exception did not state that it was only limited to “public property” [see Granite-Clearwater at 1335];

WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater finds and determines that it is appropriate to address the concerns expressed by the district court in the Granite-Clearwater decision and to adopt a modified version of the former Section 3-1803.B. [to be renumbered as Section 3-1804.A.] and expressly limiting the exception to the limited circumstances when balloons, cold air inflatables, streamers and pennants are located on public property subject to criteria set forth in the Code, and to similarly modify the provisions of the current Section 3-1805.V. [to be renumbered Section 3-1806.R.] by clarifying that the exception for balloons, cold air inflatable, streamers, and pennants is limited to when their use is on “public property” [see Granite-Clearwater at 1335; see also Pleasant Grove City, Utah v. Summum, 555 U.S. 460, 467, 129 S.Ct. 1125, 1131 (2009) (the First Amendment’s Free Speech Clause does not extend to government speech)], and by setting forth in these preambles the rationale for the adoption of the prohibition and limited exceptions, as clarified;

http://www.ordinancewatch.com/files/...nment75469.pdf

[Tellie]

Originally Posted by Go Wildcats

Wouldn't it be easier to not be easily offensive?

Yes to both statements. But people have a right to be offensive and to be offended. Just as ones mans trash is another mans treasure. It is not up to other individuals to decide which one is superior to the other as measured by the self adjustable personal offense meters that too many people have these days. I guess I was raised a bit different than some others. If I saw a boat flying the Swastika flag I'd probably be the first to ask them why before I went full Karen and scurrying off to the dock master. When I was 16 years old my Dad told me that I didn't know everything, 49 years later he's still right on the money. A bit of humility on both sides would go a long way to be sure. But I have zero problem with anyone expressing their beliefs whether I agree with them or not, regardless of the offensiveness of it. I don't have to like it, but I will defend the more important right to say it freely. To me this is akin to those threads that complain about neighbors boats that don't seem to the offended to be quite up to snuff and how they should be eliminated. As hard as some are trying right now in this country to eliminate free expression by others that don't believe as they do, I am a still in the camp of a free America. Even if I am the last camper.