The cop tells him, that because he’s on school grounds, if he puts the sign back up after he’s been told to keep it down, he’ll be charged with trespassing, or “anything I want to charge you with”:
I don’t know if the law that’s being unevenly applied here, is against “incitement”, or something else. The helpful Obot suggested that the first amendment is applied differently on school grounds, than anywhere else.
My husband said the guy should have let himself get arrested, and had the case thrown out of court. I don’t know if that would have been worth the trouble.
This seems to me like an infringement on free speech.
Hat tip: Gateway Pundit
“Country lawyer”, BlackisWhite Imperial Consigliere has weighed in at his blog, Taxes, Stupidity and Death.
As to Officer Cheeks: If you’re going to allow political signs that are just writing, and not ones with pictures and text, prepare to get sued. The only possible reason to single this sign out for disparate treatment would be if it was obscene or pornographic, and even then, if you were dealing with someone who knows more about the law then you obviously do, Officer You-Can’t-Bring-That-Sign-Or-I’ll-Arrest-You-For-Trespassing, they might just let you arrest them and then sue you for violating their civil liberties.
Video: “This used to be America!” “It ain’t no more, okay?”
Allahpundit makes the good point that Claire McCaskill got away with imposing a no sign rule at her town hall because it was on public property, but questions why the officer was able to distinguish between signs with images on them and signs that were text-only, the same point addressed by BlackisWhite.
Read comments for more legal analysis.