Man Faces Littering Charge For Putting Up 'Impeach Bush' Sign

[johnnie]

" A Kent man who put an Impeach Bush sign reading "Impeach Bush" on public property is due in court Thursday.

Kevin Egler faces littering charges.

The initial charge against Egler was for violating an advertising ordinance. That charge was dropped.

The littering fine carries a maximum penalty of $500 and 60 days in jail."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/wews/20070906/lo_wews/14056772;_ylt=Am6ZwJhxj.ANGJCglckBSyME1vAI


Unbelievable.

[chat_noir]

1. Charges dismissed for "Impeach Bush" sign

Kent -- Criminal charges were dismissed Thursday morning against a Kent man who posted an "Impeach Bush" sign in his yard.

City Law Director James Silver dismissed the littering charge against Kevin Egler. Egler was initially charged with advertising in a public space, but those charges were dropped earlier this month. The city then filed the littering charges, which carried a higher potential penalty.

Kent officials also agreed to pay the $82 court costs.

Robert Fitrakis, Egler's lawyer, said the city saved itself $100,000 by deciding not to pursue the charges against his client. Fitrakis maintained the charges against Egler were an effort to curb his right to free speech.

http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2007/09/charges_dismissed_for_impeach.html

[bryant69]

2. are people allowed to put up any signs they want on public property?

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[blogslut]

3. It was his yard

n/t

[GOTV]

16. I think that's an error in the article, it was actually on public property near a freeway onramp nt

[displacedtexan]

4. Haven't you ever noticed campaign signs along railroad tracks...

... and along highways?

In most counties, that's public property, and signs aren't in violation of any laws.

I've worked on several campaigns where "midnight sign run teams" took advantage of this little loophole in the local laws.

[Spazito]

5. The article says he put the sign in his yard....

Since when is one's yard "public property"? How can one be charged with littering in one's own yard?

This doesn't make sense to me.

Edited to add the statement in the article from the link in the first response post:

"Criminal charges were dismissed Thursday morning against a Kent man who posted an "Impeach Bush" sign in his yard."

[lligrd]

6. Just A Guess But In My City, The City Owns The First Three Or So

feet of homeowners property. In fact, any trees planted in that space are city property and cannot be removed without city permission.

[Spazito]

14. Interesting! So, does the city maintain that three feet or do you have to?

Are your property taxes on the land inclusive or exclusive of the three or so feet? When one purchases that property do they pay for those 3 or so feet yet do not own it?

[lligrd]

18. They Trim The Trees - Not Sure About The Taxes nt

[bryant69]

7. The OP says Public Property and so does the article he referenced n/t

[Spazito]

12. The link in the first response post has an article with the result

of the case, it was dismissed. It is in that article where it says the sign was in his yard. Here is the link for your convenience:

http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2007/09/charges_dismissed_for_impeach.html

[bryant69]

13. I read it - I was trying to figure out to what you were referring to.

I'm jsut saying that's what I was responding too.

Bryant

[Spazito]

15. Ahhh, thanks, I wasn't sure you had seen the article to which I

referred.

[GOTV]

17. I'm pretty sure that's an error in the article - it was on public property

http://www.ohio.com/news/9348366.html

"Egler said he placed his sign, similar in size to a yard campaign sign, in a grassy area beside a small pie-shaped flower garden where East Main and Willow streets converge with Haymaker Parkway. Silver previously called that property a ''public right of way.''"

[Bandit]

8. Only if they have the Ten Commandments on them or they are a cross.

:shrug:

[bryant69]

9. Good point - if that is objectionable

for private individuals to put a cross on public property why isn't it objectionable for someone to put up an impeach bush sign on public property.

On the other hand, I'm not sure someone's yard counts as public property though for this comparison to work.

Bryant

[Bandit]

10. Mt Soledad in San Diego

Federal Judges ruled the cross can stay so why can't the Impeach Bush sign? Also many court rooms which are public property have Ten Commandments on their walls and it has been ruled that is okay. Why can an Impeach Bush* sign be removed? :shrug:

[bryant69]

11. I think you are misreading me

It should be one or the other. If one is bad than the other should be bad. I agree with you there.

My only question is, if this sign was in the guys yard than that's not really public property in the same sense that a court house is public property. Putting a Ten Commandments in a courtroom makes it look like the County is endorsing the Christian/Jewish faith. Putting a sign Impeach Bush or vote for Guiliani in a courtroom makes it seem as if the county/city is endorsing that political position, and that might be problematic. It raises legitimate concerns.

On the other hand putting an impeach bush sign in yoru own yard, even if it is technically city property, does not imply that the city or county is endorsing your opinion.

Bryant