Kent drops charge against 'Impeach Bush' protester

Source: Cleveland Plain Dealer

The city of Kent backed down for a second time Thursday morning when it dropped a littering charge against a local man who had posted an "Impeach Bush" sign in a public garden.

Kevin Egler originally was cited for unlawful advertising in a public place in late July, but the city dropped that charge early last month, then announced that he was going to be charged with littering, which carries a heftier potential fine.

Law Director James Silver declined to comment on the city's motives Thursday.

He told Portage County Municipal Judge John Plough that the city would pay the $82 court costs.

Read more: http://www.cleveland.com/news/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/portage/118915589842440.xml&coll=2

of the sign was pro-Bush?

That guy gets NO sympathy from me. Public spaces belong to everyone as a group and to no one individually.

Redstone

pro-war sign?

Redstone

joined it, I'd be fine with a pro-war sign being posted on public property. I don't think that the public sphere should be a politics-free zone.

an individual. And you do NOT have a right to use property that does not belong to you without the owner's permission. That's a longstanding common-law precept known as "trespass to chattels."

Hey, did you like it when all the telephone poles in your town had those obnoxious "Work From Home" signs on them? I bet you didn't.

An illegal sign is an illegal sign.

Redstone

And I'm sorry, but take a walk in a park or drive down the street and you're an individual using communal property.

Plenty of public spaces are festooned with commercial messages. Why not political?

that a sign is speech and that bringing a charge would be impeading free speach.

The same reason that I'm against minorities being pulled over and searched/harassed more than whites for their offenses. If we are going to follow the laws, we all need to be held accountable the same. Nowadays when the governments control is growing like a cancer, we all start to get angry when we notice a side that may represent or oppose those doings, is being targeted. If all is fair,then I agree with you, I don't know if they were arresting others for the same kind of crime there though?

of free speech and cannot be banned per se. If a person chooses to stand and hold a sign with a political message it cannot be banned. If you stick it in the ground and leave it then that is a different issue and the sign could be deemed illegal.

or is that ruling used for ANY advertising, political signs, etc., that have been posted? They dropped it fast enough.

There are pro war and pro bush signs everywhere. What is the problem with an anti-war or an anti-bush sign?

It is the nuisance of a bunch of papers hanging everywhere. I used to work in Kent, a college town. You would sometimes see thousands of 8x11" papers hanging everywhere to announce concerts, poetry readings, dorm room roommates, stuff for sale, etc. It was a serious eyesore. Kent took a pretty aggressive stance in "beautification" of the downtown area which was the right thing to do.

When people put papers up they never come down. So people tape or staple more papers over the old ones. Then you get a thunderstorm with 25 mph winds and those papers come down swirling and blowing all over town.

It wasn't about the anti-Bush part, it was about not following the rules. He could have easily stood in the garden with a sign and protested the war.

political speech isn't the same as commercial speech.

I did write the city prosecutor an e-mail thanking him for helping to make the impeachment issue national news, though.