ACLU Sues Itself
Posted on December 26, 2005
Hat tip: Don Surber
Here is one to file under ridiculous. Only an organization like the ACLU could sit down with officials and help them draft a law, and then sue them when they enforce it.
David Quinly doesn’t like the war in Iraq.
He also doesn’t like the $300 ticket that Prairie Village gave him for homemade yard signs that publicly express his displeasure.
The American Civil Liberties Union of Kansas and Western Missouri is helping Quinly appeal his citation to Johnson County District Court.
“It’s clearly a First Amendment issue,” said Quinly’s attorney, John Simpson. “We think … that the Prairie Village sign ordinance is too restrictive.”
Quinly enlisted the organization’s help in November, after he lost the appeal of his citation in municipal court. The ACLU asked the district to dismiss the case, and Quinly’s trial date is Jan. 3.
Prairie Village prohibits temporary political signs larger than 5 square feet. The total area of temporary signs displayed on any one property may not exceed 10 square feet, according to city code.
Signs can’t be up longer than 60 days.Quinly has been making signs since he first heard the United States might enter Iraq. His messages change with the news.
He said he was ticketed Sept. 20, after being warned that two signs in his yard at the time exceeded the allowed size.
Though it wasn’t necessary, I think it was rather polite that the City gave the guy a few warnings. Of course, he didn’t listen to the warnings, and knowingly continued to violate the law.
Quinly left his signs up despite warnings, figuring he could endure a $20 or $30 citation for his cause. He was shocked when the ticket was for $300.
Quinly said he found the amount excessive, and unaffordable, so he asked the ACLU for help.
So, in come the ACLU to save the day. No doubt, if they win it will be at the taxpayer’s expense. The real irony is that the law the ACLU are sueing over, is a law they helped write.
Charles Wetzler, Prairie Village city attorney, said issues surrounding temporary signs don’t usually apply to commercial signs.
Sign placement and size must be restricted to prevent them from creating traffic hazards, according to the ordinance. The sign ordinance also seeks to prevent “visual clutter” in neighborhoods.
Wetzler said Prairie Village has revisited its ordinance many times, and the current version was drafted with input from the ACLU.
“The law changes all the time in this area,” Wetzler said. “There have been new cases that come out, and if we need to look at it, we will.”
But for now, Wetzler said, Quinly owes the city $300.
Before being fined for knowingly ignoring two warnings, and defying the law, he had hoped to contribute to the community dialouge about the war with other wonderful messages such as one with “Merry Christmas” above a folded flag and the number of troops killed to date.
» Filed Under 1st Amendment, ACLU, News
Trackback URL
Comments
10 Responses to “ACLU Sues Itself”
-
Affiliations
The Giants
-
Donate
Steal Me
Our Store
Click the design to visit our store and help Stop the ACLU!
More blogs about the ACLU
What hypocrites. I didn’t see the ACLU rush to defend Troy Newman of Operation Rescue when the City of Bel Aire slapped him with a citation for displaying images of aborted children on the side of his “Truth Truck.” I guess the qualifier is truth vs. lies for that bunch of libs.
Thanks Jay, I had forgotten about this until you posted it. This is in my neck of the woods so I plan to try to get an interview with this guy.
Jay Adkins
The ACLU Inquisitor
Outstanding. This is O’Henry good Irony.
Haha, doesn’t suprise me at all. Liberals are full of stupid suprises and idiotic mistakes.
A real work of art this ACLU is.
Love the blog Jay! Keep checkin’ mine out!
Actually, I see this more as a “camel’s nose” issue. According to the article, political signs were once not allowed. Since they became legal, the law has been changed fairly regularly; it doesn’t state whether the ACLU was involved in previous iterations although I think it’s likely–it just states that the group was in on the latest review/change of the law.
“According to the article, political signs were once not allowed.”
I have read the article numerous times and can not find a statement that they did not allow signs in the past.
“it just states that the group was in on the latest review/change of the law.”
Which is exactly the point… ACLU drafted the law that they are now challenging.
First, the article simply states that the ACLU had “input” in the drafting of the law. That doesn’t mean that they approved of the final version and it doesn’t mean that the final version was constitutional. Your amazingly weak argument reminds me of the Dover school board trying to say that the teachers had “input” in the drafting of the intelligent design statement. The teachers gave feedback but what came out in the end is not what they wanted.
Second, I thought conservatives believed in things like private property rights and that good ol’ technicality, the Bill of Rights. Apparently, that’s not the case at this site.
loboinok–at the very bottom of the article you will find:
“Wetzler said many Johnson County cities, Prairie Village included, once prohibited political signs altogether, even at election time.”
I’ve worked in politics long enough to know that “input from” doesn’t mean “helped draft”. More likely it means ACLU spoke at a hearing or submitted testimony or some such, and the governing body made its own decision.
One can read such euphemisms, of course, with greater or lesser generosity depending on one’s predisposition. If it were true ACLU had literally “drafted” the law, you’d be right it’d be hypocritical to sue. The devil’s in the details, though, and I’ll bet a closer, neutral look at primary source documents would show that the city did not actually follow recommendations reflected in ACLU’s “input.”
In any event, happy new year to you all, and carry with you until then my best regards,
Lornkanaga…
I stand corrected on the “no signs in past” statement!
Nasty Little Man …
“Your amazingly weak argument reminds me of the Dover school board trying to say that the teachers had “input” in the drafting of the intelligent design statement.”
Which I am sure you would consider no different than the current debate concerning Bush’s wiretapping of “US citizens”.
The MSM and the left know that “US citizen” being refered to by Bush are people like this: http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/06/19/alqaeda.plea/ and have acquired citizenship to aid them in their terrorism, using constitutional protections.
As you can see, it is an older article. Do you see CNN or the left pointing this out now? Of course not!
As for the ACLU’s “input” “drafting” or recommendation, with this ordinance, it would not be the first time. Some months back we posted a article concerning the ACLU opposing a “Christian” school club, up in the Northwest I believe. They reversed their position in that case. I am trying to find it and will post it for you when I do.