[SUBMITTED] (CO with Rednest) A Sign of Things to Come

[Jutsa]

Last co-authorship I swear!

Saw this draft from Rednest some time ago, and I thought it was a neat topic,
and so entered a co-authorship with them! Probably my last one for a while... if you haven't noticed how many I've entered recently.

I hope you enjoy; I'm sorry I took so long to get to this, but alas, I hit a small road block.
(also a better title name is welcome)

Title: A Sign of Things to Come
The Issue: A recent campaign speech by @@CAPITAL@@ mayoral candidate @@RANDOMNAME_1@@ called out the owners of the apartment complex that @@HIS_1@@ campaign manager lives in, upon being evicted for putting campaign posters on @@HIS_2@@ balcony despite a lease provision that prohibits political signage. The candidate not only promises to impose a city ordinance that would render such provisions invalid, but has also called for you to impose this policy throughout @@NAME@@.
Validity: (Co-Authors: Rednest, Jutsa) Democratic; Capitalist

Option 1: "This is a clear attack on freedom of speech!" proclaims activist @@RANDOMNAME@@ as @@HE@@ bumps into you on the way back from dropping off @@HIS@@ rent check. "The people of @@NAME@@ should not have their voices silenced just because they pay rent every month! @@LASTNAME_1@@ has the right idea! Ban land owners from restricting our freedom of speech!"
[effect] entire apartment complexes are filled with @@LEADER@@'s face

Option 2: "Hey, it's my property! I should be able to tell my renters not to post ad campaigns, especially when it's some bozo with a jaunty cap," says @@RANDOMNAME@@, owner of over a dozen apartment complexes in the @@CAPITAL@@ area. "It's not like we're telling them who to vote for. It's just that us landowners should have the right to say what can and can not be placed on our properties. In fact, you should pass a law protecting us land owners and allowing us to do anything we want with our land, regardless of who's living in it."
[effect] signs saying "We Are Better Than You" can be seen on rented lawns

Option 3: "Tyranny by renters must end!" argues @@RANDOMNAME@@, who has become a cause célèbre for tenant rights after @@HIS@@ landlord evicted @@HIM@@ for owning a dozen unregistered pet @@ANIMALPLURAL@@. "There are too many landlords in this great nation who think they can force their tenants to do whatever they want. These are people's homes! You should ban contracts prohibiting peoples' rights to do whatever they want in their home, regardless of who owns it!"
[effect] the average security deposit for an apartment has quadrupled

Option 4: "Stop making this an issue about land owners and renters; this is an issue about eyesore posters of crooked politicians with even worse smiles popping up all over the place," says @@RANDOMNAME@@, after having kicked over several posters from your opposition on @@HIS@@ jog over. "Have designated places for these things and ban them from popping up anywhere else. They're disgusting, and I shouldn't have to look at them if I don't want to."
[effect] political posters are so crowded out that no one knows who they're voting for

ed: If you haven't noticed, I've also enjoyed using the term "bozo" lately.

[Candlewhisper Archive]

So basically, there's a lease contract that a tenant has signed, and that tenant is breaching that contract?

Seems pretty much a non-issue to me. The freedom to place campaign posters isn't going to sway any court in the world as an argument when a tenancy agreement has been freely signed.

Still, campaign posters and their placement COULD be an interesting thing to look at in different contexts.

Maybe think of some sort of campaigning that stretches the definition of campaign poster. Or maybe have some other reason against the posters than tenancy rules?

For example, you could have a landlord wanting to evict his tenant because he finds his politics aborrhent, and doesn't want the symbol of a far right hate group displayed on the building he owns. The politician could say that the tenancy agreement doesn't prevent him from doing this, and that he can't be evicted for his politics, or something like that.

[Verdant Haven]

So basically, there's a lease contract that a tenant has signed, and that tenant is breaching that contract?

Seems pretty much a non-issue to me. The freedom to place campaign posters isn't going to sway any court in the world as an argument when a tenancy agreement has been freely signed.

Still, campaign posters and their placement COULD be an interesting thing to look at in different contexts.

Maybe think of some sort of campaigning that stretches the definition of campaign poster. Or maybe have some other reason against the posters than tenancy rules?

For example, you could have a landlord wanting to evict his tenant because he finds his politics aborrhent, and doesn't want the symbol of a far right hate group displayed on the building he owns. The politician could say that the tenancy agreement doesn't prevent him from doing this, and that he can't be evicted for his politics, or something like that.

This is actually something that has come up repeatedly in the United States - usually in the context of flags, but also political signs and other visual displays. There have been a mix and match of court and law results from it, and as yet, there hasn't been a consistent precedent set. I suspect this issue is referencing that.

Here's a link to a discussion over at the American Apartment Owners Association, touching on the dangers of overly-restrictive policies. Thing is, a tenancy agreement in the US, freely signed or not, can not legally override constitutional protections on freedom of speech. Part of the way those protections work is that people can not waive them, voluntarily or otherwise, so as to protect people from being secretly compelled to do so. This might be able to work as an issue touching on that very question - what are the limits of a tenancy agreement (or a contract, or an EULA) in regards to waiving rights that may not be able to be waived.

-EDIT-
Found an example of a court ruling overthrowing a housing authority's claim to limit posting of signs, ruling it a violation of free speech.

[Sacara]

This is actually something that has come up repeatedly in the United States - usually in the context of flags, but also political signs and other visual displays. There have been a mix and match of court and law results from it, and as yet, there hasn't been a consistent precedent set. I suspect this issue is referencing that.

This.

I actually have personal experience with this, too.

[Candlewhisper Archive]

I see, different expectations I guess. Even though we also value free speech in the UK, there's generally less resistance to restriction of it when placed in competition with other values, and probably the integrity of contract law means more to a Brit than the right to declare political allegiance does.

Interesting stuff.

[Jutsa]

Interesting indeed, although it does highlight that this is probably going at things from a more American-centric viewpoint.

Personally I've never dealt with this since I live in a politically apathetic state with comparatively few apartments.

[Australian rePublic]

Which political campainer pays rent? Can't they afford to buy?

[Jutsa]

*shrugs*

[Jutsa]

Bump~

[Jutsa]

Whoops, almost forgot about this 'un, tbh; ok so I guess I will bump another draft today.

Any last comments? Putting this up for last call, I believe.

[Caracasus]

Which political campainer pays rent? Can't they afford to buy?

Grassroots campaigners mate.

Yeah this is a decent premise actually. It is basically disenfranchisement whatever way you cut it as rental agreements aren't really freely entered into, rather like employment contracts they exist in that murky grey area. You need a job for money and you need a place to sleep.

[Rednest]

This is actually something that has come up repeatedly in the United States - usually in the context of flags, but also political signs and other visual displays. There have been a mix and match of court and law results from it, and as yet, there hasn't been a consistent precedent set. I suspect this issue is referencing that.

That was my thought process when I wrote the original draft, yes.

[Jutsa]

Here's hoping this makes it to the game. Thank you, Rednest.

[Australian rePublic]

Good luck!