The fact is, the city sanctioning this is violating the 14th amendment, UNLESS they allow every other political group equal access. This is the same argument anti-Christian groups and homosexual advocacy groups have used as well.
They should absolutely prevail. I'd argue that governments that allow protests by violent mobs but require permits for peaceable assembly should likewise be sued
I would love to know how it's authorized to mark over nationally accepted standardized highway markings with political slogans. So basically if a politician decides to paint his campaign slogan on highways it's fine. If I ever wound up in an accident on one of these roads I would sue.
Technically speaking a city sanctioned painting is different from one that is not.
I can't just put up statues in parks for funsies.
However the city then cannot disallow anybody from now getting a permit for street painting. (But they will anyway)
The fact is, the city sanctioning this is violating the 14th amendment, UNLESS they allow every other political group equal access. This is the same argument anti-Christian groups and homosexual advocacy groups have used as well.
Yes. Judicial watch has recently sued the DC mayor for this exact reason.
They should absolutely prevail. I'd argue that governments that allow protests by violent mobs but require permits for peaceable assembly should likewise be sued
You assume we are still a country of laws. It's clear there is a two- or even three-tiered justice system.
The city should have just painted ACTBLUE, more truthful messaging
Absolutely.
I would love to know how it's authorized to mark over nationally accepted standardized highway markings with political slogans. So basically if a politician decides to paint his campaign slogan on highways it's fine. If I ever wound up in an accident on one of these roads I would sue.
People are fed up. I really hope it's going to be a landslide.