Shut Up

by John - dunaree2000 Mon Apr 24, 2006 11:29

The reason for banning posters is that they look unsightly. They are wall litter. They spoil the environment. It doesn't matter whether they are to advertise some left-wing event or bingo at the Church hall. Its the same with graffitti. You might have an idea but it wouldn't be good to allow you to scribble it on the walls of the GPO. The silence of Greens and environmentalists on the issue of left-wing vandalism is deafening. Beautiful buildings are continually defaced with moronic left-wing slogans and posters. Ninety-nine per cent of it emanates from left-wing and socialist groups. You don't see the walls of beautiful buildings in Dublin plastered with slogans such as 'vote PD' or 'Mary Harney for Taoiseach'. With the internet now available (a capitalist invention, of course) virtually anyone can put their ideas in the public domain. So, there is no need for unsightly posters or graffitti.

by Gaz B -(A)- Mon Apr 24, 2006 11:59

"You don't see the walls of beautiful buildings in Dublin plastered with slogans such as 'vote PD' or 'Mary Harney for Taoiseach'."
why use a wall when you have access to mainstream radio stations, tv, newspapers etc. RTE bleedin love mcdowell.

by MichaelY - iawm - pers cap Mon Apr 24, 2006 12:03

The neurotic regressive response of some in Indymedia on any subject, on any message, or particularly any struggle that confronts the interests of the elite and the powerful in this country continues to amaze me....In this thread, following the thoughtful and perceptive posting by SR, here goes again the anti-left/pro censorship brigade.
A careful reading of the original posting would indicate that there is no argument there in favour of schizophrenic graffiti (anarchist or otherwise) on the walls of the GPO or any other public building ; there is however a strong argument in favour of the right of citizens to express their views and to clearly associate unhindered by either repressive legislation or, as is this case, undemocratic administrative 'decisions' of unelected officials.
Furthermore, who would disagree that the rich and powerful, be they of Irish or of multinational origin, have the means and ways of making their views and objectives known to the public. Be it for monetary profit or political control.
The poor, the marginalised, the oppressed, the minorities however do not have neither the way and most often the means of expression. So when a bureucrat decides to stunt and criminalise public expression, we have the right to object, contest and try to reverse that decision.
Never mind John - dun 2000's assertion that "the reason for banning posters is that they look unsightly....are wall litter...they spoil the environment"......the main reason for banning political postering in the city is censorship and political control - particularly coming from a political elite that has one of the worst records of environmental protection in Europe.
And we will object - we will demonstrate - we will reverse that decision....

by ren Mon Apr 24, 2006 12:39

If posters look unsightly and are enviromentally detrimental surely then you would agree that all poster and billboard advertising should be banned? Personally i get annoyed whenever another empty piece of the city scenery is blocked by a new viacom or other companies poster site, just what is the difference between illegal postering and legal advertising both clutter the visual landscape in a similar fashion, in fact much of the illegal postering is less invasive, they just paste their notices onto blank building site hoardings and parking meters, the outdoor media providers on the other hand erect hoardings that block out everything else inflicting often completely inappropriate visual imagery on their surroundings, at least the left wing posters can rarely afford to be brash and gaudy with their limited black and white palette on an a4 sheet.

On the other hand i have often wondered why no one has set up some sort of social billboard, surely all you need is a wall and planning permission, like the big old notice board they used to have in the agora in ancient athens, a wall space in the city centre that people recognised as the place to go if you wanted to see what was happening. Remember wallace's big anti war banner, all that was wrong is that he didnt get planning permission. Well enough of my pie in the sky meandering. hmm you know those knee high metal stands that go outside shops telling you what newspapers they have, they don't have planning permission and are often blocking public footpaths, could one get away with cheap plywood sandwich boards placed on the streetscape? And as a last resort projectors dont need planning permission but they only work at night, anyone in a flat in town with a wall opposite or a footpath below, but a bit pricer than paper.

by Bill Stickers Mon Apr 24, 2006 14:11

It seems from the article above that a meeting to discuss possible actions to re-invigorate the Irish anti-war movement turned into a meeting to discuss the ban on posters in the area controlled by Dublin City Council.

While the ban should be overturned, I don't see how getting involved in this campaign can do anything other than distract people from more important issues.

Does anyone think the people being transported through Baldonnell and Shannon, hooded, shackled, and on their way to be tortured in some secret CIA-run gulag in North Africa or Eastern Europe are thinking -"If only DCC allowed posters to be stuck on street furniture"?

Buy some wheat paste and have a think about your priorities.

by MichaelY - iawm Mon Apr 24, 2006 14:24

Although it's not my job to post articles about the anti-war co-ordination meeting and its deliberations, just to say as a response to the above that the decision to invite people to participate in an action against the DCC's undemocratic/bureaucratic decision to ban postering was only one of many issues discussed and decided on.

The co-ordination/networking will continue. A number of meetings will take place over the next few days and there is a third plenary meeeting planned for Saturday May 13th.

SR did a good job writing the above article - the ban effects and hampers all of us and the struggle against censorship is a key issue for all political activists. Nobody is being "diverted"...I would say the opposite. The anti-war mobilisation continues in a variety of forms, with a variety of tactics. As it should be.

by John - dunaree2000 Mon Apr 24, 2006 15:46

Get over your persecution complex about leftists, socialists etc having no access to the media in Ireland. Think of the most prominent tv, radio and newspaper journalists in Ireland. For example, Vincent Browne (nightly program on RTE radio, columns in Irish Times, Sunday Business Post and has his own magazine) - is he a member of the coporatist elite? - Fintan O'Toole, Gene Kerrigan, Tom McGurk, Eamonn Dunphy, Mary Raftery, Maev-Ann Wren, Robert Fisk and a hundred others. The Irish media is full of journalists spouting left-wing rubbish. So, stop trying to pretend that the left-wing view in Ireland is censored as an excuse for plastering Dublin with wall litter.

by Topper Mon Apr 24, 2006 16:07

Your identification of Eamon Dunphy as "left-wing" gives the game away, John. I suppose from your point of view the anti-union, middle-of-the-road Irish Times is a commie rag. Leftists don't have any persecution complex - just a well-founded understanding of the grip corporate power has over the media. For every Gene Kerrigan there's a dozen Eilis O'Hanlons, for every opportunity Robert Fisk gets to put across a critical view of the US in the media, Mark Dooley or Kevin Myers or Eoghan Harris will have a dozen opportunities.

You haven't made the slightest effort to address the point about commercial billboards, so your hypocrisy is obvious to anyone.

by john bunyon - "puritans for progress" Mon Apr 24, 2006 16:22 the independent IKEA republic of katurlitter

After all Francis Johnson never intended it to look like that when he built it (all on his own) in 1815, all pock ridden and spweing forrth bad psychic energy and violence. & that was the Free State's fault. I enjoyed a short visit to Dubin recently, well i use the word "enjoyed" in a general sense, I was just avoiding the tax inspectors in truth, and though I found I could buy cheap polish beer at affordable enough prices, the café terraces were useless to enjoy the hot spring sunshine, as more than a quarter million people were gawking at tanks. All I could bring myself to write on my postcards home was - The Irish adore violence, I've opened the overseas accounts and complete the membership form to the PD's Everywhere I looked - bullet holes.
Fill them in with a bit of putty!

by MichaelY - iawm Mon Apr 24, 2006 16:33

John of Dun

Your reading of what we're saying is not complete...you're probably just about skimming the words but not grasping the essential. Please read again SR's and my message.
It's the poor, the marginalised, the minorities, the oppressed, the immigrants who don't have a voice - whose right to free expression is censored by these types of bureaucratic shananigans. The well-heeled journalists you enumerate, without me wanting to denigrate some of the very important work they do (what you in your wisdom call 'rubbish'), do not belong to these sections of our people whose voice is censored. Not by far.
You tell me, if we want to advertise to the general public, to those the anti-war movement wants to invite and see participate in our vigil/demonstration against the US warmongering on Iran on May 6th -whom of the above should we address ourselves to? Who should we plead with to tell his/her readers/listeners that the US is preparing an attack on a State that has signed the UN Nuclear Proliferation Treaty and has every right to develop a nuclear enrichment programme - every right as much as the US itself, Britain, France, India, Pakistan or indeed Israel has?
The Irish State since its inception has suffered much through censorship...be it through the messengers of God or the State of the revamped Republicans of FF [remember Section 30]. Not to mention that indescribable individual with the title of Minister of (In)justice. Democracy in our country is an essential prerequisite to economic and cultural progress. And the quest for democracy is not furthered by faceless bureaucrats taking decisions such as these on their hands.
Think again John before you jump.

by John - dunaree2000 Mon Apr 24, 2006 19:54

No one's voice is censored in Ireland. Don't be such a drama queen. All organisations are free to post on the internet or to set up their own website. They are free to produce newsheets and most newsagents will sell them. They are free to stand in Grafton Street or O'Connell Street and hand out leaflets to passers by. They are free to hold protest marches to the Dail. They are free to mount demonstrations outside the GPO. Unless, of course, they're unionists from Northern Ireland, in which case they'll probably be attacked by the very people who complain most about censorship. None of these freedoms are actually available in socialist countries like Cuba, a fact which doesn't seem to affect your admiration for such countries. The only restriction in Ireland is a proposed ban on sticking hideously unsightly posters on the walls of buildings and on street furniture such as signposts and lampposts, a ban which is motivated not by censorship but by a concern for the environment and which applies to all political groups, whether left or right, and to non-political groups.

by Seán Ryan Mon Apr 24, 2006 20:15

Hello John.

What they do in Cuba is irrelevant. This is Ireland, let us the Irish decide what goes here.

There is no law in existence that outlaws postering in Ireland. There are however, many laws that guarantee my right to express myself and my right to associate with others. Many of these laws are to be found in the Constitution.

You say litter - I say information. Let the public decide. The public cannot decide if they are not informed.

Telling the Irish people to use other means to express themselves (like the internet) is fine and indeed a good idea. However to use this idea as an excuse to restrict my rights in as far as postering is concerned is at best illogical.

So in fairness to you John, you've played your tune - and it's not a hit. Get over it and move on. Try changing the record, you're beginning to remind me of something I'd see plastered on a billboard. IIl-informed and rapidly becoming irrelevant.

A right to protest - http://www.indymedia.ie/article/75227

by Mick Butler Mon Apr 24, 2006 22:29

Well SR's piece activated a fairly rapid response. INFORMATION, INFORMATION, INFORMATION !!! Posters are utilised by Hollywood, Rock Stars, etc, as well as other forms of advertising, but boy do they sink money into THE POSTER! they see the POWER OF THE POSTER and some people think we should be content with texting and the web. It dont work that way when you want to inform large numbers of people and maybe get them onto the streets, eg anti war, or Shell to Sea stuff and some of the responders are Im sure very well aware of this, so who do you work for ?? . DCC excercise a hyper active policy of removing these type of notices and people come on with diversions of unsightly notices etc whats your gameplan???

by John - dunaree2000 Tue Apr 25, 2006 11:35

The Irish people have decided. Its they who elected DCC. If you don't like it, put up candidates at the next council elections on a platform of allowing unlimited postering of buildings, walls and street furniture. If you win, you can plaster every building in Dublin with your posters. Dublin will look like a dump, but so what? Just so long as you are able to express yourself in whatever way you want. Marked absence of comments here from environmentalists. They're usually very vocal on this site. Have they nothing to say about keeping Dublin tidy?

by MG Tue Apr 25, 2006 11:45

John another post with your usual ranting and other assorted nonsense. It was not the elected reps of DCC who decided this it was the manager who is an unelected, unaccountable bureaucrat. The "ban" is unconstitutional and would require a constitutional challenge to defeat it. No organisation has the money for this. The manager is content to allow commercial advertising up, just not any posters critical of the government. Now John please go away people are tired of your idiotic positions.

by MichaelY - iawm Tue Apr 25, 2006 11:50

Hey John,

Every single elected Councillor contacted on this subject has stated that he/she is against the ban. The decision to ban postering was an administrative one...it never came for debate. An unelected and unfortunately anonymous official took it and applied it. A motion to reverse this decision has been on the agenda since late 2005 but, somehow, never manages to reach the floor. This is the type of democracy 'elected' bodies have to live under. As Christy sings 'An Irish solution and Irish ways'....and please do not compare us with Cuba or North Korea again. It doesn't wash here.
As suggested to you by a number of people in this thread, the record[CD?] you are using to argue for the ban is stuck - if not broken. I see you take part in other threads, defending the status quo in a variety of ways - but that's your business.
In the postering ban issue though your position is untenable - it's anti-democratic and, should I say, bigoted! Let go - u r not doing your team any favours by continuing.

Cheers

by John - dunaree2000 Tue Apr 25, 2006 15:20

My information comes from your own site. This was posted on Monday April 10, 2006 17:41 by 'stencilist - anti-war'.

"Negating The DCC Poster Ban.

They Drove US To Illegality.

The Dublin City Council are enforcing an illegal poster ban which silences all small non-profit,
non-corporate groups - political or otherwise.

Legally we are allowed leave posters on poles for 7days and then remove them. The city
council continues to remove our posters so to organise for Baldonnel we are forced to stencil.
Lift the ban and we'll stop leaving a permanent mark on the walls of our beautiful city. "

I assume by 'poles' it means telegraph poles and not our recent immigrants.

Note how many times it says 'city council', not 'city manager'.

But the distinction is spurious. If you look up the DCC website you'll see the following:

"The City Manager has overall responsibility for all functions of Dublin City Council including
implementation of decisions of the City Council."

So, if the democratically-elected councillors wish to overturn this ban, they have the authority to do so.

Why don't you put aside your persecution complex for a short while and accept that this ban is simply part of a series of initiatives to give Dublin city a long-overdue clean-up. Getting rid of all graffitti should be the next step. Next thing you know you'll be putting your political messages on crisp packets and moaning when the city council/manager stops you throwing them on the pavement.

For people who are always whining about never having your voice heard, you are always extremely anxious to silence or tell to go away anyone who puts forward a contrary opinion to yourself.

Game, set and match I think.

by MG Tue Apr 25, 2006 15:28

John you are utterly clueless and you embarass yourself. There is more power in the lightbulbs in city hall compared to what the councillors have. The manager has the power to ignore the councillors on this issue as he does. Not only have you gotten in completely wrong, you embarass yourself by showing that you know nothing on the issue. Game set and match against the idiotic posturings of a right wing clueless ideologue.

by John - dunaree2000 Tue Apr 25, 2006 16:58

Why don't you check your facts more instead of hurling infantile abuse? This is from the website of Southside People, quoting a recent speech by Cllr Dessie Ellis (Sinn Fein):

"Cllr Ellis said that since the council's policy began, campaigners in local communities had not
submitted requests to the council anymore to advertise issues. He blamed the poster policy
on the Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael and Labour parties in Dublin City Council who, he claimed, were
in favour of it because poster campaigns empowered local pressure groups."

He seems to be blaming the FF, FG and Labour councillors who make up a majority on Dublin City Council, rather than the city manager. So, much for the earlier post that all Dublin city councillors were against the ban.

by MG Tue Apr 25, 2006 17:08

So John in response you use a press statement from a SF councillor who of course, like any politician, uses any chance to attack opponents. Or perhaps it's Dessie's "North Korean economic policies" which dictate this attack. However, unfortunately for you, Dessie's attack doesn't detract from the reality which is
a. It was the city manager who decided on, and implemented, the poster ban
b. The majority of councillors oppose the ban
c. The ban is unconstitutional
d. the ban has nothing to do with litter it has everyhting to do with attempting to eradicate dissent
e. John Dunaree continues digging a bigger hole for himself

by Mick Butler Tue Apr 25, 2006 17:56

Some facts : DCC were reported in 4 daily newspapers, 20/2/2006 as saying a "BYE LAW"was enacted in 2004 to "prohibit posters". FG, Labour and some indo councillors took this as the truth and as--"the law". No such thing, it is an outright lie and I am sure John d is well aware of this. The city manager admitted in writing that "no bye law "exists in relation to this matter,this was in response to a written question. This is "on the record". April 3,2006. The Lord Mayor can bring the motion to revoke this illegal ban to the top of the agenda of any council meeting if she so wishes. Many have wrote to her about this but she, the "First Citizen" does nothing about this violation of the Constitution and ECHR, Article 10,the latter is part of Irish law since December 31, 2003. But John d, you know DCC have little problem wasting taxpayers money fighting this ban in court. A little exposure of this dirt to the wider populace will do no harm at all ,in fact its just what
is needed. DCC know quite well that a cold light cast upon this will cause a outrage among the populace and the elected councillors have serious questions to answer concerning their lethargic response to a denial of a basic civil right .
All the waffle about the city covered in blanket posters is total rubbish. Balanced policies that respect and afford citizens the basic right to
communicate public meetings or assembly to their fellow men and women through the medium of public property is what is required, no problem about sanctions if this is abused, once the medium of communication is effective. Tell Terence Wheelock's family to put an add in the papers or rte for a meeting. Not on! GET REAL John d.

by MichaelY - iawm Tue Apr 25, 2006 18:17

Hey John,

You are insistent in your make-up world - will give you that much.
Your rantings though are serving a good purpose and to that extent I am beginning to appreciate what you're doing: you're clarifying our position, you are elucidating why this poster ban is a very regressive and an anti-democratic measure. And you're showing us the pigheadedness of reactionary thought in all its glory. Well done John.

In the meantime, just listen to a poem about some men who wrote history - whose courage we are celebrating this year:

What men considered a dream: perfect but remote,
We take for granted as the simplest of things.....
We know that they would not have survived, without that hope somewhere deep within,
They could not have survived without their dream.
Now that we who live in the light.....
Leaving behind a world of division,
The way of thinking [like yours John] that divided us
Now,
for the first time,
We can retrace the end of the old order

Keep it up old boy.

by John - dunaree2000 Tue Apr 25, 2006 18:23

The city manager is responsible to the council. They have ultimate control. If they don't like what he's doing, they can order him to reverse his decision or dismiss him. Supply your evidence that the majority of councillors are against the ban. Do you not think that, if that were true, some left-wing councillor would have proposed a motion condemning the ban and that it would have been passed? Ellis doesn't seem to agree with you. Are you a Constitutional lawyer? Its for the courts to decide if its unconstitutional, not you or me. Since virtually every left-wing organisation in the country is opposed to the ban, why don't they pool resources and challenge it in the courts, if they're so confident its unconstitutional?

by MichaelY - iawm Tue Apr 25, 2006 18:34

Hey,

You're doing well. You still don't read properly or your forget things in your haste to play ball. However, to help you somewhat:

Check: A motion against the ban was tabled - and has been on the books since last November.
Check: The motion remains at number 15-17 at every meeting and does not make it further up.
Check: We are thinking of a constitutional case.
Check: These left-wing journalists you were talking about - can you intervene and ask one or two of them to put some money up for the case? Do you know of any good and hard working constitutional briefs? If they were cheap it would be helpful as well.
Check: Would you work with us, from your standpoint, if we managed to put together a case?
Check: Will you come and join us in the picket on the Mansion House on May 8th 6 pm?
Check: Your friends in struggle

by John - dunaree2000 Wed Apr 26, 2006 11:11

If you have a majority of councillors behind you, then there is nothing stopping the motion being debated and passed eventually. Councillors can pass any motion they like. If they vote against the ban, then you have nothing to worry about, because they have the power to overturn the ban. The city manager is merely an employee. He is not a dictator like Fidel Castro. He has to do what the council tell him to do. Obviously, the council may delegate to him on a day-to-day basis in the same way that they delegate to whoever is in charge of cleaning toilets in the Mansion House. But, ultimately its the council which lays down the rules. He has to obey. If you are thinking of a constitutional case, get on with it. As for financing a court battle, might I suggest you look to Sinn Fein for help. They support your case and they're loaded with money. No need to dwell here on where they obtained that money. I would suggest the solution to this is for you to persuade a majority of councillors to vote to rescind this ban. If they do, your problem is over. That would be democracy in action and, although I support this ban, I could not complain if a majority of democratically-elected councillors voted to end it. I wouldn't go round saying it was all the city manager's fault for lifting it. I'd just accept it was the democratically-elected council's decision. But, if you can't persuade a majority of councillors to vote to rescind this ban, then stop saying its undemocratic and the city manager's fault.

by Mick Butler Wed Apr 26, 2006 14:53

What is all this guff about Castro etc ? Constitutional ??? This is IRELAND !!! Come off it John d, We dont need a court to tell us that a ban on trade unions would be unconstitutional or that if you or anyone else were purcahsing child pornorgraphy it would be illegal and a crime. Some stuff is comon sense J d. We do not always need a court to elucidate common sense.

by Mick99 - NoOrg Tue May 02, 2006 15:20

Can i just revert back to the main topic and the "ban!". First of all what about my right not to read any of your thoughts vrs your rights to post them? I dont think its a god given right in a democratic country to post slogans/posters just because "you" deem it worthy. I do believe a concession of some kind should be made where certain recognised organisations/groups can be given the right to airtime on radio or tv and even on places where posting is permissable. This would be to stop Billy Nobrain from posting that cocane is misunderstud and we should all have some for breakfast. I do agree with the anti-war campaign in Ireland but sometimes i think they would like Ireland to be more active in the war so they could justify their feeling of "martial law in a police state" but unfortunaly the worst Ireland has done is fill up the US military planes with fuel and not scream at Bush for starting the war, presumably not because Bertie loves him but because it could cause an economic problem in Ireland, now if this is complicit in murder of people in Iraq then sorry to tell you guys that the PC your are currently on probably uses Microsoft Windows , which pays its taxes in the US which in turn buys the bullets that kill innocent children, so does that make you a child killer? I could be wrong here but i think that kind of thinking alienates alot of people who would otherwise be more active in a campaign to condem all countries who participated in the war and push for an end to it. Sometimes i think that the kind of people who are the first to be out protesting about any and every worthy cause are exactly the wrong people for the job. Take Glen of the Downs in Wicklow a few years back. Some guy rightly said that the environment could suffer if a road of that with where to pass through, next thing people are living in trees and telling us that we shouldnt build any road because apparently 10 million trees will be murdered and special flowers and very rare birds (which only live in Wicklow Ireland!) will die. Now did this cause the nation to rise up and confront the dail with pickaxe in hand? No instead we viewed the protesters dancing around for a while as if in some Dennis Hopper movie from the 60's and then we got our road, overtime and over budget. Oh and the special birds flew (birds can fly) to another tree nearby although a little worse for ware after all the music and cannibis they had been exposed to over the months. My point (somewhat long winded) is that if you want to get support you do it by relating to the greater public not by over dramatising the issue.

by MichaelY - iawm Tue May 02, 2006 15:51

Hello Mick 99

A nice, sensitive and low key response....thank God also that John Dun fella seems to be enjoying his long weekend in peace and particularly in q u i e t! Long may it last!
To your points....First of all, Ireland's complicity with the aggression and occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan are NOT simply of the 'hello Bush, we're friends, we won't scream too loudly' variety'....thousands of soldiers are passing from Shannon every month back and forth from the killing fields...apart from refuelling the aircraft, they're in and out of the airport, buying this that and the other...here we have a classic jobs/profit v ethics and morality situation. Cindy Sheehan whose son was killed two days after arriving to Iraq through Shannon, calls this 'blood money' !!
Secondly, there is increasing evidence that CIA leased aircraft are stopping over in Shannon, and possibly Baldonnel, carrying prisoners to be delivered to countries where torture is routinely practiced. This is against international law and the Government are aware that Ministers could be liable for prosecution...being told by Rice that all is OK is no defence....
Thirdly, it was more recently noted that large aircraft are stopping in Shannon, delivering Apache helicopters to Israel!! Now, this is unwarranted involvement in another war...in some other killing fields...who are the Apaches going to be used against?
Ireland is unwilling being made complicit in acts of war - in an undehanded and undemocratic way. It's no joke to even consider how those fighting the forces of the Empire conceive of this situation...and the horrific consequences if one of those head-the-balls decides that our people here are a soft target! Who would be to blame? Whose responsibility will it be?
So Mick 99, the key argument is not so much whether the anti war movement, or those who argue for the right to free expression, use the "correct" methods to draw the middle ground to our side....but the extent that our system of government is being abused by a few in actions which clearly constitute breaches of our Constitution (neutrality) and international law....what can be done about it.
Would appreciate your measured comments - thanks

by Seán Ryan Tue May 02, 2006 16:03

Sometimes one can over-analyse things.

For instance - you're breathing my air, paying taxes encourages the government, be careful with that shoe leather a cow died to make it, etc.

I'm not suggesting that these are not valid issues. I'm suggesting that you have the right to air them and I have the right to reject your opinion whether you be right or wrong. This was never an argument offered to begin with.

This is kind of what you said. You believe in free speech. You have the ability to discern bullshit from fact.

However when you suggest 'selected groups' you promote censorship without rationalisation.

Who decides who these legitimate groups are?

Free speech and free association are well covered in our constitution. The poster ban is illegal - period.

Let us discuss legitimacy after DCC stops breaking the law.

That is what this is about.