If he's forced to change the mural, he should repaint the donuts as giant assholes, prominently labeled with the names of the officials who voted against his variance permit.

Lot's of laws existed for decades before they were struck down as unconstitutional. What really matters is whether there is a culture of liberty, where people respect the free speech of others. I want to live in a state with a culture of liberty.

The linked article references many such cases, although I don't think they went to the Supreme Court. The fact that these cases didn't go to the supreme court, if anything, indicates that these laws were clearly unconstitutional and therefore didn't need to go that far.

Anyways, the supreme court has addressed freedom of speech laws as relates to billboards, such as this example last year. That case is not relevant to this case, ofc, since this bakery sign is not digital. Also, I'm not a constituional lawyer. I'm just asking questions about this because I'm genuinely curious.

well that's not really pointing out a NH law unless you want to source one. Its a completely off the deep hyperbolic statement. State and town laws can be more restrictive than the US or State constitution but they cannot be in violation of it, and as dumb as the people trying to take down this sign are, they're within regulation to do so. The people in the town should change that.

Avert your eyes then. Freedom does include people saying things you may not like.

I'm also in favor of donut murals on a donut shop, but lets figure it out so we have laws that make sense and we are in line with what we have all agreed upon.

As long as we're making suggestions, may I suggest that you move to one of surrounding authoritarian states? That way, you can force bakers to paint their walls drab colors to your heart's content.

I don't know, leave it up to the people who do?

I don't think that advertising for ones business is covered under the free speech amendment. There are sign laws everywhere, and if sign laws were a violation we would have seen it in the supreme court by now.

The town is fine with the small logo, that is allowed as a directional sign. The painting is whats in question.

Joe Prieto out of concord is amazing!!!

"what if a XXX shop decided to paint their building with the dildos they sell?"

I'm in favor of everyone's free speech rights, even if I don't like what they have to say. Let a thousand dildo murals bloom!

Yes, I want people to be able to show films that criticize government officials, regardless of their funding source. This is also the position of the ACLU:

" The ACLU has consistently taken the position that section 203 is facially unconstitutional under the First Amendment because it permits the suppression of core political speech, and our amicus brief takes that position again."

I also favor letting bakers paint donut murals on their walls.

You two should become free-staters and start a podcast together that no one listens to

i don't live there bro idk what you want me to do

I'm pointing out that some small town laws are a) immoral and shouldn't be obeyed/enforced b) often can't easily be changed by the people being victimized by them.

Sure but does it not count as a first amendment violation?

In my view, laws exist to protect our right to life, liberty, and property. So, when the law itself violates those rights, then there is no moral or ethical obligation to obey or enforce it. For example, many towns used to have "sundown laws" that made it illegal for non-whites to remain in town after sunset. Do you think a sheriff charged with enforcing "sundown laws" had an ethical obligation to enforce them?

In this case, billboard regulations violate the property owners right to do with their property as they please, and violate the First Amendment protection of freedom of speech (" Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press...")

Of course, the Constitution is just a piece of paper; what matters is whether there are enough people who value civil liberties that they're willing to protect other people's civil rights. I'm arguing that the townsfolk should defend this baker's free speech rights instead of slavishly obeying the local ordinance (just as I would advocate that folks living with "sundown town" laws on the books have no duty to enforce or obey them.)

They're not at risk and they can completely alter the wording however they want. But that's the process, rewrite the law if you want it changed

What?!? How did me make the jump from small town new hampshire sign bylaws to lynching black people laws?!?

Lot's of small towns are dominated by obdurate, petty tyrants that can't be easily influenced or ousted due to local "good 'ol boys" networks. That's why the national government sometimes had to step in and say "No, really, you can't just lynch black people."

I think it's hard to call it unconstitutional. And if they are on the books and everyone agrees they are unconstitutional and/or shouldn't be enforced then they should be removed. Otherwise what is the point of laws and rules at all?

It's indicative of the culture, which is an important factor in many people's moving decisions.

Is the NH Supreme Court substantially more pro-free speech?

Lot's of stupid, unconstitutional laws on the books. That they exist doesn't mean they should be enforced.