| Comments: |
![[User Picture]](http://l-userpic.livejournal.com/73973828/98643) | From: muftak Sat, 20-Jan-2007 11:40 PM (UTC)
| (Link)
|
can't see it on google earth either (which offten seems to have different data to google maps)
What could be a legal background for a local "authority" to defy the 1st amendment?
![[User Picture]](http://l-userpic.livejournal.com/26104787/6145587) | From: lohphat Sat, 20-Jan-2007 9:49 PM (UTC)
Don't you know? | (Link)
|
The all-knowing, all-powerful HOA.
![[User Picture]](http://l-userpic.livejournal.com/65234169/2160150) | From: dballing Sat, 20-Jan-2007 10:28 PM (UTC)
Re: Don't you know? | (Link)
|
... which is why there are some of us, at any rate, who refuse to purchase homes where a HOA is involved.
It's my property, and I'll do what I damned well please with it. :-)
![[User Picture]](http://l-userpic.livejournal.com/60044304/494422) | From: sc00ter Sat, 20-Jan-2007 11:17 PM (UTC)
Re: Don't you know? | (Link)
|
I've read in a few places (not online, but in local papers) that you can defy the HOA rules, but they can deny you access to HOA facilities and services (such as trash pickup, access to HOA parks, etc.).
My parents retirement community tried to stop people from putting up DirecTV dishes (and they live in a community where you only own the house and not the land, you rent the land). But that is very illegal and people put them up anyway.
![[User Picture]](http://l-userpic.livejournal.com/30977421/2036614) | From: editer Sun, 21-Jan-2007 1:24 AM (UTC)
Re: Don't you know? | (Link)
|
In some places (e.g. Houston) the HOAs are powerful enough to seize and sell your house if you defy them.
From: gryazi Sun, 21-Jan-2007 6:32 AM (UTC)
Re: Don't you know? | (Link)
|
47 C.F.R. Section 1.4000, wherein some illusion of competition is preserved. (But if you wanted a terrestrial antenna or C-band dish to watch things that are free without paying for them, that's unamerican.)
![[User Picture]](http://l-userpic.livejournal.com/60044304/494422) | From: sc00ter Sun, 21-Jan-2007 1:11 PM (UTC)
Re: Don't you know? | (Link)
|
Zoning and signage regulations. There was a recent "number of dead" billboard that was oversized and the group was told to make it smaller or it would be taken down. (Of course, it appeared as a headline that the government was taking down the billboard, but the quotes in the article didn't seem to jibe with that).
Disclaimer: you may know more about that particular case than I cared to learn. Point is, free speech seems to be trumped by local sign laws. Feel free to contradict me on that, as I'd like to know if it isn't. After I bit of thought I decided I prefer that signage laws apply: there shouldn't be "some speech is more free than other speech" laws, even if it's political protest versus a commercial billboard. If the one is limited, so should the other. Of course, limiting it at all is questionable to me, but if I have to accept that, I prefer even ground.
Wow. Congress shall make no law... shall it not?
![[User Picture]](http://l-userpic.livejournal.com/1838084/552426) | From: eqe Sun, 21-Jan-2007 1:19 AM (UTC)
| (Link)
|
So long as the regulation is content-neutral the first amendment doesn't prohibit regulations that curtail "speech". It's perfectly legitimate for a city to prohibit cars driving around with loudspeakers at two AM, even though they might be blaring first-amendment-protected speech.
![[User Picture]](http://l-userpic.livejournal.com/5887295/515656) | From: jwz Sun, 21-Jan-2007 1:24 AM (UTC)
| (Link)
|
Also these Homeowner's Association agreements are a matter of contract, not a government imposition; there are a lot of rights you can voluntarily waive, so long as it's not the government imposing it on you.
Right; those are called "time, place and manner restrictions", or they were when I took media law in 1989 or so.
Not being a doctor or anything, one would think these are sure signs of an onset of a sort of schizophrenia.
It would appear that way. It certainly would be counterproductive towards getting her son back.
![[User Picture]](http://l-userpic.livejournal.com/9435673/725716) | From: pne Sun, 21-Jan-2007 4:56 PM (UTC)
| (Link)
|
That was my first thought, too.
Benevides vowed not to remove the messages, which she believes come from God
Remember that film, "The Gods Must Be Crazy"? this is the sequel: "God makes you crazy".
I can't wait for "Believing in God is in reality, crazy".
Yes I am well aware of that. I just like to get my barbs in when I see the opportunity.
Mmmm... Barrrbs...
![[User Picture]](http://l-userpic.livejournal.com/5887295/515656) | From: jwz Sun, 21-Jan-2007 1:09 AM (UTC)
| (Link)
|
Or perhaps "Crazy makes you Goddist."
I'm not sure "onset" is the right word.
Yep - I would agree with that assessment. A really good friend of mine was recently diagnosed with schizo-affective disorder, and his writings are *very* similar to hers.
We're finding out from this experience that the mental health "system" is very ... disappointing. It's really sad.
![[User Picture]](http://l-userpic.livejournal.com/33185018/7284881) | From: cameo Sat, 20-Jan-2007 11:35 PM (UTC)
| (Link)
|
So.. she accuses the government and associated mafia of mind controlling and bewitching the poor for their own devious causes, and the government has demanded she be silenced!?
Coincidence? I think not! *puts on her pyramid-shaped tin-foil hat*
*hands one to jamie*
![[User Picture]](http://l-userpic.livejournal.com/63758761/10577010) | From: httf Mon, 22-Jan-2007 10:20 PM (UTC)
I love her hair | (Link)
|
And the lip piercings. Man, that's so rivet.
Why doesn't God just get a blog like everybody else?
Constant friend requests.
Remember that part in Terminator 2 where Sarah Connor was in the mental institution raving about Judgement Day and nobody would believe her, even though she was absolutely right?
Stories like this always make me paranoid that we're all going to look really stupid in the second reel.
It depends on the type of ravings. As stated in T2 her "delusion" was very detailed and provided valid explanations for every point of it. Her reasoning and word usage was also very coherent with no evidence of formal thought disorder such as you tend to see in many of these cases.
Fundamentally there were only a few unbelievable concepts in her story: machines take over and time travel. In something like this you have a greater degree of unbelievable activities taking place.
Otherwise you're totally correct. You just need to pay attention to the people others are writing off as crazy who seem like maybe they're not actually crazy.
![[User Picture]](http://l-userpic.livejournal.com/21755913/494204) | From: wisn Mon, 22-Jan-2007 12:38 AM (UTC)
| (Link)
|
You've convinced me. I'm voting for Kucinich next year.
![[User Picture]](http://l-userpic.livejournal.com/34707257/794893) | From: narniaknight Tue, 23-Jan-2007 10:25 PM (UTC)
please excuse the following geekout | (Link)
|
Oh noes! A sleeper found out about the Technocracy and the Traditions! Wait till she stumbles onto vampires and werewolves... | |