So, I open the front door of my home – a residence on a quiet city street I have occupied for forty-five years – and I am confronted by a large, red-white-and blue banner reading “Fuck Biden: And fuck you for voting for him” displayed on my neighbor's porch directly across the narrow street. What is happening to Brant Avenue?
Of course, my initial
reaction is a mixture of surprise, shock, and disgust. The message is
offensively clear: the connotation is to bring about injury or loss
to the President of the United States and to anyone who voted for
him. In addition, the vulgarity of copulation used in the signage also
brings to mind a violent attitude having to do with rape. Not something I want to view when I exit my home.
Free Speech?
The First Amendment Encyclopedia presented online by the John Seigenthaler Chair of Excellence in First Amendment Studies states that profane words historically were considered blasphemous and punishable.
In 1942, Justice Francis W. Murphy assumed this position in his famous passage from the “fighting words” decision of Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire: “There are certain well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which has never been thought to raise any Constitutional problem. These include the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous, and the insulting or ‘fighting’ words.”
Then, nearly 30 years later, the Supreme Court ruled that an individual could not be convicted under a local disturbing the peace law when he wore a jacket bearing the words “Fuck the Draft” into a California courthouse.
In Cohen v. California (1971), Justice John Marshall Harlan II reasoned that “while the particular four-letter word being litigated here is perhaps more distasteful than most others of its genre, it is nevertheless often true that one man’s vulgarity is another’s lyric.” Harlan warned that “governments might soon seize upon the censorship of particular words as a convenient guise for banning the expression of unpopular views.” Cohen stands for the principle that profane words, in themselves, cannot be banned under the First Amendment.
My research about the constitutionality of such political displays led me to a recent occurrence in Wisconsin about similar profanity. An opinion piece in The Medford Wisconsin Star News (January 19, 2021) urged citizens to take down profane political signs. In part, the article read …
“From the 'Just because you can doesn’t mean you should' realm of issues comes the presence of at least two political signs on private property in the city of Loyal that contain vulgar profanities to convey their message. Yes, we acknowledge, these property owners 'can' display such signs, as per freedom of speech under the First Amendment, but if they are even the slightest bit concerned about their effect on the local neighborhood and the softening of divisiveness in an overheated political climate, they would not.”
(“Take the profane signs down.” The Medford Wisconsin Star News. E-edition. January 19, 2021.)
The signs in Loyal were legally displayed on private property and each contained a particular profanity. According to the the local police chief, the signs generated no formal citizen complaints. And, the city had no ordinance prohibiting such signs, but did have rules stating where signs cannot be placed (i.e. street right of way) and one that says political signs should be taken down within 10 days of an election.
The editorial explained the rationale supporting removal …
“As for the signs with profanity, why? We fully support any citizen's right to stick a sign supporting their candidate of choice on their lawn, or to fly a flag proclaiming for all to see what side of the political fence they sit. Such signs are another form of freedom of speech guaranteed by the Constitution, and particularly this year, we were encouraged to see so many people exercising it. And, no, we don’t care who those signs supported. Each one represented the personal opinion of someone, and we laud them for taking part in the democratic process.
“Those few signs, however, have no place in public view. One of them does not even support a candidate, but denigrates the other, by means of the most obnoxious of 4-letter words. It is petty and offensive, but again, allowable. In giving people the choice to express themselves in intelligent terms, we must accept the bawdy, as well.
“Such signs are problematic on several counts.
“First, they are in full view of all, from children walking by on their way to school to motorists passing by, to out-of-towners who see them and think, 'My, what kind of community is this?'
“Secondly while the right to free speech allows such vulgarity to be displayed, what about the public’s right to enjoy their town without seeing terms that for good reason are not allowed in schools, public setting, churches, etc. And also, if we accept such displays for political purposes, where does it end? Will we next see '---- the Vikings!' in someone’s front yard when our Packers play their rivals?
“So, to the property owners who feel it necessary to display their opinions in such inelegant colloquial terms, we ask politely that you take them down. By leaving them up, you are …
Perhaps proving a 4-letter word is the longest in your vocabulary, or
Showing that you care more about dividing a community than healing it.
“You can leave them up, no one says otherwise. The decent thing to do is take them down.”
(“Take the profane signs down.” The Medford Wisconsin Star News. E-edition. January 19, 2021.)
It seems the identical banner proudly displayed by my neighbor also caused a stir this July in New Jersey. Roselle Park Municipal Court Judge Gary Bundy ordered a local homeowner to take down profane flags critical of President Joe Biden that are displayed in her front yard. Three of the flags say "Fuck Biden." Bundy says if they're not removed, the homeowner will face fines of $250 per day.
(Elizabeth Nolan Brown. “Judge Says 'Fuck Biden' Signs Are Obscenity and Orders Their Removal.” Reason. July 19, 2021.)
Bundy claims the signs violate the area's ordinance against obscenity—and seems oblivious to the fact that the law runs afoul of the First Amendment if applied in this way.
The Roselle Park ordinance defines obscenity as anything that "appeals to the prurient interest; depicts or describes in a patently offensive way sexual conduct as hereinafter specifically defined, or depicts or exhibits offensive nakedness as hereinafter specifically defined; and lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value."
In defending the ordinance and its use to censor the anti-Biden signs, Bundy pulls out the time-tested censor talking point: "Freedom of speech is not simply an absolute right. It is clear from state law and statutes that we cannot simply put up the umbrella of the First Amendment and say everything and anything is protected speech."
However, as it turns out, the New Jersey woman – Andrea Dick (no pun intended) – can leave up several banners that use what local officials called an obscenity to express her hostility toward President Biden, a state court ruled later in July.
The ruling came after the woman enlisted the American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey to fight the municipal judge’s order that she take the banners off a fence outside the house where she lives with her mother or face $250 a day in fines.
After the civil liberties group joined the case, Roselle Park officials backpedaled on their earlier demand that Ms. Dick take down the banners and effectively dropped the matter.
(Ed Shanahan and Tracey Tully. “Biden Hater’s Banners That Town Called Obscene Can Stay Up, Court Rules.” The New York Times. July 27, 2021.)
Conclusion
After calls to the city manager, the Portsmouth Police Department, and the city solicitor, I received word that the neighbor was told to remove the offensive banner or face charges of a misdemeanor in violation of a city ordinance. I was informed that authorities informed the man of his obligations and the penalty he faced if he chose to ignore the law. As a result, the neighbor, – within 24 hours – took down the sign.
All in all, this story represents a lesson in individual rights as they relate to a person's responsibilities and his decency while practicing respect for others in the community. I certainly believe in free speech and free expression; however, when the tone and intention of profanity is overly aggressive and accusatory, I do not support the use of public profanity. In this case, the intention was clearly disrespectful and uncaring. Nothing directly solicited the offensive use of the vulgarity.
In this case, the use of “fuck” expressed utter contempt, disdain, and complete disregard for its intentions. The forceful expression was underpinned by anger, dismissal, and contempt directed at not only the President, but at 81,282,903 people who voted for Biden, a number that shattered the 2008 record of 69.5 million votes cast for President Barack Obama.
To close, I think the mode of expression – a large banner with U.S. Colors displayed on a front porch banister – was ill-advised in a time of division that runs so deep. Instead of confrontation, healing should immediately begin in the individual neighborhoods of our nation. We all must live together in greater harmony for peace and tranquility to return us to a sense of normalcy.
God bless the City of Portsmouth for understanding the real intentions of the political statement. This concern is especially gratifying in light that Scioto County remained overwhelmingly Republican in the Presidential Election of 2020 – 21,926 (Trump) to 8,876 (Biden).
Imagine buying these. This signage is currently for sale.Yep, nothing says "Merry Christmas" like the politically profane.
No comments:
Post a Comment