WEST HOLLYWOOD, Calif. (AP) ― A Halloween decoration showing a mannequin dressed as vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin hanging by a noose from the roof of a West Hollywood home is drawing giggles from some passers-by and gasps of outrage from others.
The mannequin is dressed in brunet wig, glasses and a red business suit. Another mannequin dressed as John McCain emerges from a flaming chimney.
Chad Michael Morisette, who lives in the house, told CBS 2 News that drivers and bus passengers have been stopping to snap pictures of the macabre scene.
Morisette says the effigy would be out of bounds at any other time of year, but it’s within the spirit of Halloween.
He says “it should be seen as art, and as within the month of October. It’s Halloween, it’s time to be scary it’s time to be spooky.”
And to be fair, how long do you think this guys house would be standing if the “objet d’art” was Obama?
#84 – Worship, noted.
#73.
I said
libel is protected speech against public figures, so long as it is not done with actual knowledge that it is false
you said:
Libel is not protected speech and does not require actual knowledge that it is false. I quote from Law.com
“While it is sometimes said that the person making the libelous statement must have been intentional and malicious, actually it need only be obvious that the statement would do harm and is untrue. ”
Libel against public figures is not actionable under the First Amendment unless the plaintiff can prove actual malice – NY Times v. Sullivan. while your cite may be accurate as to libel against non-public figures, the First Amendment trumps in the case of public figures.
I said:
“A _direct_ threat to do her harm is another thing. Yes, he will get a visit from the Secret Service, but that is not the same thing as actually being prosecuted.”
you said:
“Only after they have made their determination will it be clear that he has not broken the law. No one here can claim that it is protected speech until the Secret Service has determined his intent is clear. It is protected if and only when his intent is benign.”
as has been noted, the Secret Service does not get to decide what is protected and what is not. they can claim that something is a direct threat and bust the guy, but it will be up to the court he is hauled into to determine whether the First Amendment protects his effigy.
#75. you said:
“If you are part of the military, CIA, police, etc and go around telling everyone State secrets, yes, your butt will be hauled off to jail. Nope, no first Amendment protection there.”
although the newspaper that reprints your disclosures IS protected, see the Pentagon Papers case. so anyone who does not sign up to keep secrets can disclose them. it is certainly possible to waive your constitutional rights – everyone who pleads guilty to a crime waives his or her right to a jury trial
you said:
“Kiddy porn is another expressly illegal activity not covered. These activities are illegal because there is statute law against them. So how the hell does it become a tautology? BTW, tautology means redundant or excessively repeated.”
in this context, to say that speech is illegal and not protected by the First Amendment is redundant. if it is illegal, it is by definition not protected. if it is protected, it is not illegal, because the law making it illegal violates the Constitution and cannot be enforced.
It’s not Palin, it’s a dummy. HELLO. That’s the message of both dummies shown there, they are dummies. DUH. Why do people have such a problem figuring things out. There is so much artistic expression here. The dummies are being hanged by dummies who think they are making a cool political statement against republicans. It’s a no brainer. LOL. I mean, ROFLACSL.
#92 grog, “it’s interesting that you ask whether anyone was convicted of anything”
Not really interesting. It would just show whether something was determined to be illegal and whether that determination stood up to appeal.
Of course, that line of thinking may be a bit too logical for you…