COL Barfoot -Threads Merged

[Husker19D30]

Originally Posted by Longrifle

If burning the flag disrespectfully is considered "freedom of speech," why isn't flying the flag respectfully considered the same and protected as well?

This is what it comes down to for me. There would seem to be a first amendment issue here.

[Spinner]

Is he allowed to fly the flag in some other fashion?

Flagpoles aren't the only way US flags are authorized to be displayed.

My mom just moved to a retirment village, a condo as opposed to one of the stand alone villas the also have. This is the first time in her adult life that she's lived at a place where she has to abide by their rules.

They don't seem that restrictive, but when I mentioned that when it came time to wash her screens I thought I'd just bring over a power washer and do it there, she told me that's something that probably couldn't be done. So, we'll have to bring the screens over to somebody's house to do them, or else pay the HA $5 a shot to wash them.

The hell with that. Paying to have them washed, that is.

[Decon]

Originally Posted by Longrifle

If burning the flag disrespectfully is considered "freedom of speech," why isn't flying the flag respectfully considered the same and protected as well?

Originally Posted by Husker19D30

This is what it comes down to for me. There would seem to be a first amendment issue here.

I'm sure they wouldn't let him burn one in his yard either.

I do kinda like the idea of a law protecting a persons right to display the US flag. However, I don't enjoy new laws telling us what we can or can not do on private property. Oh what the hell, he has a MOH. Let him do whatever he wants!

[Spinner]

I can't find it, or maybe I'm not looking in the right place, but there was a video that came out a few years ago showing two older Vets in what looks like a condo complex, competing with each other to see who can raise the flag first every morning.

I thought Charles Durning played one of them, can't be sure.

[mdb23]

Originally Posted by Husker19D30

This is what it comes down to for me. There would seem to be a first amendment issue here.

The first amendment states that the govt shall pass no law prohibiting or infringing upon free speech. This is not what is happening here, and is therefore not a first amendment issue.

This gentleman entered into a legally binding civil contract when he purchsed his home and signed on the dotted line with the HOA. It was a choice that he made. If the contract said "no flag poles," then he doesn't have a legal leg to stand on. It's that simple.

I don't like HOAs, which is why I didn't buy a home in a neighborhood that had one.

[AJG]

Originally Posted by Husker19D30

This is what it comes down to for me. There would seem to be a first amendment issue here.

There's not a First Amendment issue here. First, nobody is telling he can't do anything that he didn't agree to when he purchased the house. Second, the First Amendment prohibits state action which restricts freedom of speech, it has no bearing on what a homeowners' association which a person voluntarily joined can require of its members.