2 Freeway Bloggers charged with reckless conduct and unauthorized display of a sign ......

[JohnyCanuck]

in viewing of a highway, both misdemeanors.

A Downers Grove man believes he is being prosecuted for his political views - and an area attorney has taken his case pro bono.

Jeff Zurawski, 39, of Downers Grove and Sarah M. Hartfield, 45, of Naperville were initially charged with disorderly conduct for displaying a banner that read “Impeach Bush and Cheney - LIARS” on May 6 on the Great Western Trail above Interstate 355.

But more charges were brought against the two war protesters last week in DuPage County Circuit Court in Wheaton: reckless conduct and unauthorized display of a sign in viewing of a highway, both misdemeanors.

The new charges each carry a penalty of up to one year imprisonment, while the original charge was up to a three-month sentence in the county jail.

“This is political prosecution,” said environmental rights attorney Shawn Collins, who has taken on Zurawski and Hartfield’s case pro bono.

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/07/29/extra-charges-filed-against-protesters-in-illinois/#comments

[bdamomma]

1. No dissent is allowed in Bush Land

sickening, more and more signs will be going up.

[madrchsod]

2. tough call for me.....

that part of 355 is extremely dangerous do to the fact that at certain parts of the day the AVERAGE speed is close to 80 mph and at times the road is lane to lane full of cars and trucks no more than a couple ft apart. ANY distraction can lead to a very bad accident. other times the road is`t so bad where a large sign may or not be so distracting. they did break the law and are charged with-in those laws.
if one does these sorts of action one has to expect to be arrested and charged with-in the law. that`s the price one pays for one`s action. now the sign has gained far more exposure than the sign itself on 355 in chicago...
i`d say they won even though they will lose the case

[Perky]

3. I have no problem with them Highway blogging or being prosecuted.

If the law is unambiguous that you can not do what they did, then they should be prosecuted.. So long as the law is being enforced consistently and it was not established to stifle political comment this does not rise to a free speech argument.

but I also have no real problem with them claiming fres speech violation if it bring notoriety to the cause. Publicity is a great thing even thought justice ought to be blind.

[truth2power]

4. Except that

in my community practically EVERY freeway overpass is plastered with those damned yellow ribbon "support the troops" thingies. I mean 4 feet tall, stuck on the fencing all across the highway. Also American flags, 8 or 10 of them.

I don't know who puts these up, but it's interesting that the cops never come out to take them down.

NO, the law isn't enforced consistently.

[Perky]

7. The I think theier is a case for discriminatory prosecution. anf you would win hands down.

[truth2power]

17. Wouldn't there have to be case law

showing that someone filed a complaint regarding the ribbons & flags and the case was dismissed? Hopefully, there is some precedent.

[Perky]

18. I would think that the fact that the ribbons

have not been taken down and no one charges is probably enought to suggest selective enforcement based on content.

[Canuckistanian]

5. You could make the same argument for provocative ads

And they're ALSO designed to be 'distractive'.

But when was the last time you ever heard of a billboard ad being pulled for that reason?

[Perky]

8. Remember that Guerilla marketing incident in Boston

where everbody had a fit because of those plinking signs? There are responsibilities with regard to what might be reaonable assume to cause accidents or traffic delays.



Naked people on a billboard might be an example..... "Bush is a lying sack of shit" might be one as well...Impeach Bush probably is not.

[Squatch]

6. Not your property?

Don't put your fucking signs on it.

[ProfessorGAC]

9. It's Public Property

So, it is their property.
The Professor

[Squatch]

10. Just because property is public does not give one license to

litter. Yellow ribbons, political placards, political banners, are nothing but trash that somebody else has to pick up.

[ProfessorGAC]

11. That's A Different Point

One with which i don't disagree. But, your first post is the one i can't accept. As long as their is not a specific statute, and there is a compelling state interest in having said statute, then they should not post the sign.

Absent those conditions, the use of public property for a political statement seems sacrosanct.
The Professor

[Squatch]

12. Absolutely. Protest all you want on public property.

Just pick up your shit when you leave.

[ProfessorGAC]

13. See. Now We Agree

That was easy.
GAC

[Squatch]

14. Diplomacy: The art of letting somebody else have it your way.

:)

[gratuitous]

15. Uh, you are aware, are you not?

The phenomenon of freeway blogging is to have someone (or two someones) hold up a sign for a short period of time, perhaps take a picture or two to post on the internet, then pack up everything lock, stock and barrel? Oh, they might leave a few footprints, and perhaps the odd odor of direct citizen action (intoxicating, to be sure), but nobody has to pick up after them.

[Squatch]

16. Quick google search of "Freeway Blog"

reveals dozens of pictures where signs are left, unattended. Given, they're only pictures...(maybe the guy who took the picture went back to take down the sign), but after seeing signs in my own neck of the woods left on bridges for days on end, I dismiss your definition of 'freeway blogging'.