Since we're on the topic of rights on your own property, here's something we can all agree on as being an infringement of the 1st amendment
Idaho White Supremacist Builds KKK Snowman
Mind you his actions are in bad taste, but it's on his property so his right to free speech was violated.
That's fine and dandy, but he cowtowed to authority and removed the KKK hood and then the arm holding the noose.
He could have left it as was, accepted the arrest and fought it in court. He may well have ultimately won.
Or he may have lost resoundingly.
Either way - he lacked the courage of his convictions. He didn't fight for the rights you say he has in this case.
Did he spit on the graves of soldiers by throwing his rights away, showing cowardice to the police as he did?
Or, being confronted that he'd created a public nuisance, did he admit that he was shouting fire in an open theater?
What do you think?
FWIW, as context is often considered when dealing with rights, I noticed from the article that this all took place at:
"The city of Hayden, in northern Idaho, is not far from the former headquarters of the neo-Nazi Aryan Nations group."
I note with interest that had he erected this snowman - or a Nativity Scene - on the public median or public easeway to his property (whichever might apply) then he might have been compelled to remove it as a violation of church and state in the case of a Nativity Scene - or under any local provisions in the case of the silly snowman.
That's the difference a few yards can make in a physically open space (the property line is real - it is physically invisible however).
Do you believe public nuisance laws are invalid?
What if instead of a silly snowman he instead erected ear-splittingly loud audio system on the lawn and played rantings of his KKK beliefs all night long?
Does the 1st Amendment more directly protect that scenario than the snowman? It literally says speech, not snowmen as examples of expression.
Where would you draw the line?
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Was his 1st Amendment right violated or was it an interpretation of that right that was violated?
And what about neighborhood covenants? Most of those dictate what you can and can't do just to decorate your house - and they tend to stand up in court from what I've read.
How is it that an enclave of neighbors can override the 1st Amendment - doesn't it appear that way to you?
