Sign company owner alleges conspiracy

12 comments:

• straighttalk posted at 1:19 am on Sat, Jan 10, 2015.

  Posts: 1

  The billboard owner just rents the space that's available doesn't he? How is it his decision on what is put there? If he does have the power to refuse his services, that would make him prejudice wouldn't it?Everyone is entitled to their own opinion and beliefs. I'm not saying I agree with the sign, but I do believe in freedom of speech. That's the same rite that's allowing people to oppose the sign. I have no doubt that Crockett didn't find a way to manipulate a few people in order to make himself look better or to pad his pockets a little more. I completely believe the sign company's owner. Just remember, if you want to take the rights away from people you dont agree with to express they way they feel, don't expect your feelings or beliefs to matter either.

  • Link

   

• smithventures posted at 12:12 pm on Fri, Jan 3, 2014.

  Posts: 4

  Ok, find me the law that was passed against the billboard company and its message. Let's have some proof that Freedom of Speech was hindered by the government. No more emotion needed just facts.[wink]

  • Link

   

• NOYBNOYB posted at 9:06 pm on Thu, Dec 26, 2013.

  Posts: 1833

  "Crockett first sought to clarify that the HRCC is not taxpayer funded."
  WHAT ABOUT the $5000 annual 'grant-in-aid' from the city to the HRCC?NOT taxpayer money?The same $5k CROOKett dangled in front of the HRCC for support of the 1 cent sales tax increase?...
  Harrison Regional Chamber of Commerce CEO;Patty Methvin
  Harrison Community Task Force on Race Relations Chairman;Patty Methvin
  Never ignore a coincidence.

  
  "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."
  U.S.Constitution (Amendment 1)

  
  "Constitutional rights were not affected by any local government."
  That would be your opinion,Hardly a legal determination...

  " They can only be affected if the billboard owner was legally charged for the statement, such as the local government passing an ordinance banning the billboard."
  Wrong...And,ridiculous.

  "The incorporation of the Bill of Rights (or incorporation for short) is the process by which American courts have applied portions of the U.S. Bill of Rights to the states. Prior to 1925, the Bill of Rights was held only to apply to the federal government. Under the incorporation doctrine, most provisions of the Bill of Rights now also apply to the state and local governments."
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_of_the_Bill_of_Rights

  Regardless of opinion,or 'feelings';

  Schauer, Frederick (February 2005). "The Exceptional First Amendment". Working Paper Series from Harvard University, John F. Kennedy School of Government. doi:10.2139/ssrn.668543. "On this cluster of interrelated topics, there appears to be a strong international consensus that the principles of freedom of expression are either overridden or irrelevant when what is being expressed is racial, ethnic, or religious hatred. ... In contrast to this international consensus that various forms of hate speech need to be prohibited by law and that such prohibition creates no or few free speech issues, the United States remains steadfastly committed to the opposite view. ... In much of the developed world, one uses racial epithets at one's legal peril, one displays Nazi regalia and the other trappings of ethnic hatred at significant legal risk and one urges discrimination against religious minorities under threat of fine or imprisonment, but in the United States, all such speech remains constitutionally protected."
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_by_country#cite_note-143

  "Unlike what has been called a strong international consensus that hate speech needs to be prohibited by law and that such prohibitions override, or are irrelevant to, guarantees of freedom of expression, the United States is perhaps unique among the developed world in that under law, hate speech is legal."
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_by_country

  "Once is happenstance. Twice is coincidence. The third time it's enemy action."
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graft_%28politics%29

  • Link

   

• Crusty posted at 2:55 am on Tue, Dec 24, 2013.

  Posts: 2

  The problem with the billboard is it's true. Everyone knows that anti-racist is a code word for anti-White.

  • Link

   

• bradjackson posted at 9:19 pm on Mon, Dec 23, 2013.

  Posts: 1

  All tyrannies have an excuse.

  • Link

   

• Edward posted at 8:00 pm on Mon, Dec 23, 2013.

  Posts: 4

  Anti-Whites say there should be no White Countries✓
  Anti-Whites say there should be no White Cities✓
  Anti-Whites say there should be no White Neighborhoods✓
  Anti-Whites say there should be no White Workplaces✓
  Anti-Whites say there should be no White Schools✓
  Anti-Whites say there should be no White Sports✓
  Anti-Whites say there should be no White Anything✓
  Anti-Whites say there should be no Whites✓
  Anti-racist is a >codeword< for anti-White.
  STOP White geNOcide!

  • Link

   

• smithventures posted at 2:07 pm on Mon, Dec 23, 2013.

  Posts: 4

  Constitutional rights were not affected by any local government. They can only be affected if the billboard owner was legally charged for the statement, such as the local government passing an ordinance banning the billboard. To my knowledge, that did not happen. #FirstAmendment try reading it to grasp what I'm saying.

  • Link

   

• NOYBNOYB posted at 1:55 pm on Mon, Dec 23, 2013.

  Posts: 1833

  smithventures;
  Your first comment makes absolutely no sense.This is not Canada."Local government" does not amend The Constitution at will.

  "This billboard, however, is damaging to the local economy of Harrison, Arkansas" How would you know?Prove it...

  The hearsay/hogwash examples the "mayor",or his cronies come up with?...Nobody believes that BS.

  The biggest detriment to Harrison's economy,has been the "mayor"...

  • Link

   

• smithventures posted at 6:09 pm on Sun, Dec 22, 2013.

  Posts: 4

  Since there was no regulatory law passed against this billboard by the local goverment, the First Amendment was in no way violated.

  This billboard, however, is damaging to the local economy of Harrison, Arkansas and a testament to the Harrison Sign Company's support of race hate.

  • Link

   

• zeldasjim posted at 8:05 pm on Fri, Dec 20, 2013.

  Posts: 23

  If THIS were a REAL newspaper, it would try and find out who paid for the newest "love" billboards and make darn sure it wasn't done with tax payer dollars. And if the mayor donated his bill boards ( which he has every right to do) is it written off with the IRS? Inquiring minds need to know.

  • Link

   

• thetruthhurts posted at 3:53 pm on Fri, Dec 20, 2013.

  Posts: 1

  http://news4whites.blogspot.com/2013/10/jeff-crockett-mayor-of-harrison.html

  Jeff Crockett, Mayor of Harrison, Arkansas.Hates the 1st Amendment...

  The Mayor of Harrison Arkansas admits if he was the owner of the billboard, he wouldn't have allowed "anti racist is a code word for anti-white" to be displayed. This is a mayor who swore an oath to uphold and defend The Constitution.

  It's my opinion that this mayor is a domestic enemy of our Constitution and should be recalled from office.

  Mayor Jeff Crockett City Hall/Mayor's Office
  Physical Address: 114 S. Spring St, 2nd Floor
  Mailing Address: P. O. Box 1715, Harrison, AR 72602
  Phone: 870-741-2777 Fax: 870-741-0021
  Email: mayor@cityofharrison.com

  • Link

   

• OldTimers posted at 10:52 am on Fri, Dec 20, 2013.

  Posts: 8

  Bringing in the big guns, The ACLU. I really hope that they take action and assist this gentleman.

  • Link