I read the article that argues the violation
of freedom of speech and his property ownership by a law-enforcement officer.
Jon Gibson, who is living in the rural town near New York, claims that a police
officer continues to remove his pro-Second Amendment sign. The sign contains
the phrase “protect the Second Amendment” with an illustration of a firing gun.
Gibson argues that the police officer removes the sign even he put the sign
inside of his hunting field. He claims that removing the sign in his property is
clearly a behavior of theft and the violation of his freedom of speech. The
stealing of the sign was captured by the hidden camera that Gibson had fixed
near the sign. The sign was disappeared twice before which made Gibson to fix a
hidden camera. However, Somers Town Supervisor Mary Beth Murphy counterclaims
that the sign was removed because the sign was put on the public right-of-way. The
supervisor says that “the town does not allow signs in the right of way, […] the
police chief had received numerous complaints from neighbors and it was
determined that the sign was posted in the right of way.” Murphy also denies
the vandalism of the sign which is claimed by Gibson. Murphy clearly states
that the sign does not have any kind of damage and can be picked up by Gibson from
the police department any time he wants. Conversely, Gibson argues that he
captures the scene with his camera that the officer was trying to destroy the
sign by kicking it. Murphy explains about this scene that the scene can be
interpreted as a behavior of loosening the sign from the ground. Gibson says
that this is about his First Amendment and even his Fifth Amendment because the
sign was taken from him without due process. I personally think that the due
process and the acknowledgement between Gibson and the Police Department should
have been taken because it might reduce the chance to ease the conflict about the
violation of Amendments.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.