Andrea Dick is a fervent Trump fan who believes the election was rigged against him, despite the fact that her claim has been thoroughly rejected. She’s not a fan of Joe Biden, to put it mildly.
“Don’t Blame Me/I Voted for Trump” and other crudely worded messages blaring from banners outside her New Jersey home make it plain what she believes. However, the Supreme Court long ago ruled that the phrase’s usage could not be prohibited only to protect those it offends, therefore many people use it.
They asked her to remove many banners that they argued were in violation of an anti-obscenity ordinance, but she refused. Now, she’s refusing to comply with a court order and vowing to fight it in court on the basis of free speech.
In an Interview on Monday, She said, “It’s My First Amendment Right, and I’m Going to Stick with that.”
Dick’s case is the most recent of a number of similar battles that have highlighted the delicate balance that local officials must maintain between safeguarding free speech and responding to concerns over language that some citizens find offensive.
“It’s not a political issue here. “It’s a straightforward question of language,” Bundy argued. “Political communication is not restricted by this regulation. Ms. Dilascio’s freedom of speech cannot be curtailed or curtailed by the community or its laws.
However, the right to free expression is not a universal one. Because of this, we can’t just throw up the First Amendment flag and declare whatever we say is protected speech.
An counsel for the borough stated in court filings that freedom of speech is not an absolute right since “reasonable constraints” may be imposed on some forms of unprotected expression.
According to the ordinance, “current community standards” must be applied to determine if the signs are obscene to the typical person.