Quote:
I can't edit my first post to look right! HMPH!
I can't figure it out, Mel. Evidently the board doesn't like the formatting for some reason. But it's okay...it's readable. :D
Quote:
John: But could there be an argument that if a sign, or anything else that is visible from public property could be classed as offensive to passers by, it should be removed, even if it is located on private property?
Well, we don't have the right to be unoffended, so I suppose it would depend on whether the content in question was actually legal or not.
Quote:
If someone was "mooning" passers by from their living room window, surely the police would have power to act. I know that is rather a silly argument, but just wondering.
Yes...they could act, but only on the grounds of indecent exposure. Offensiveness itself is too broad a term and too subjective to be enforceable.

In the case of the Solstice sign, I suspect the motive is to force the issue in some way. There doesn't seem to be any other reason for the direct anti-religion statement. I've often heard many of those who want things like the ten commandments posted in government buildings say they'd be "tolerant" of other beliefs displaying their maxims. Looks like that declaration is being tested.

But it's still unconstitutional. And if it ever goes to court, then Wisconsin is probably going to have to do some fancy footwork to explain why it's okay for religions to post their beliefs on government property, but not okay for non-religion to post theirs. It's all or nothing.

Mac