Tag: signage

Categories
crime and punishment general freedom initiative, referendum, and recall

A Bad Sign

A Centerville, Virginia, man made news when he agreed to his wife’s demand that he stand at a busy intersection wearing a sign emblazoned “I Cheated: This is My Punishment.” His merciful wife ended the punishment after just a couple hours.

In recent years, a few judges have sporadically sought to shame criminals in similar fashion. Back in 2007, several people convicted of shoplifting opted to avoid a longer jail sentence by donning a sign outside the store they had ripped off, which read, “I Am a Thief, I Stole from Wal-Mart.” But Wal-Mart soon opted out of such spectacle.

Now, the California State Senate has passed new legislation to force folks to wear similar signs. But not for committing any crime.

Unless petitioning one’s government is now criminal.

State Sen. Mark DeSaulnier’s Senate Bill 448 seeks to harass and belittle the citizens who circulate petitions by making each wear a sign “on his or her chest” that reads “PAID SIGNATURE GATHERER” or “VOLUNTEER SIGNATURE GATHERER.” The sign would also inform the public which county the petitioner is registered to vote in, or must say, “NOT REGISTERED TO VOTE.” The lettering must be in at least 30-point type.

Sen. DeSaulnier calls this “transparency.” But transparency isn’t necessary for all petitioning, apparently: SB 448 doesn’t require those collecting signatures to put a state legislator on the ballot to wear such a sign.

It applies only to those who dare use the citizen initiative.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
Common Sense

Sign of Dissent

Jim Roos has lost — for now. A federal judge says St. Louis may force him to whitewash a sign he painted on a south-side apartment building. The sign says END EMINENT DOMAIN ABUSE.

Roos is president of the housing organization that manages the apartment building. He is also president of the Missouri Eminent Domain Abuse Coalition. He painted the mural after he and other property owners began receiving letters advising them that the city was thinking of using eminent domain to grab their property and turn it over to commercial developers.

The city refused to grant a permit for the sign, claiming it clashes with zoning requirements. Perhaps the City of St. Louis just doesn’t appreciate fine art. John Randall, an attorney representing Roos, observed that if the sign had “said something like ‘Go Cardinals’ or ‘We support our troops,’ I doubt that we would be in federal court with this.”

The case is about free speech, but it’s also about property rights. The mural is not vandalism, after all. Why shouldn’t Roos be able not only to keep but also to paint his very own property? Governments would often have you believe that your property belongs to you only contingently and provisionally, not as a matter of right.

Roos says he will appeal, and keep fighting. “If we eventually lose and there are no more appeals we’ll remove the sign. Until that time, however, I think the sign is going to remain.”

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.