What are the Really Free Market Signs made of?

Yesterday I was walking around Carrboro and Chapel Hill checking out the local candidates yards signs. Amongst all the political signs I noticed a sign not advertising a campaign. They were apparently home made signs letting us know about the Really Free Market, a "free event, where all are encouraged to give, receive, and create on their own terms."

I got closer to admire the hand cut spray paint stencil lettering, just as I would with a painting to determine its technique. Then I noticed behind the thinly painted white background was another sign. It was a school board candidate's yard sign repurposed! Knowing this I looked closer at more Really Free Market signs and noticed that other candidates yards signs had been altered this way too.

Issues: 

Total votes: 449

Comments

Neal Sweet Tea, shorter version:
"We didn't do anything wrong, and if y'all had your heads on straight you'd see that we were helping by ridding you of these signs of oppression. But I sincerely apologize."

A candidate from this year? That's...pathetic.

Yes, they are made from current candidates' signs! (I was with Brian when we discovered this yesterday.)

In addition to being illegal, this is just really stupid!

from the freemarket website:
http://www.rakaposhi.net/freemarket/index.php?page=contact
our event is a demonstration of an alternative world, a world in which resources are held in common, the community meets the needs of the community, and "free" means just that: really, really free. With so many resources, skills, and goods already in our community, why is it that buying things from elsewhere is the primary mode of meeting our needs?
==========
my take:
I guess that political philosophy means that its proponents can simply take other people's political personal property (campaign signs) and appropriate them to their own cause. Why bother buying paper for signs when others in the community have already provided them right there in the right-of-way?

As I stated in an earlier thread, I don't have any problem with people reusing signs - I think it's a neat and productive idea. But I'd prefer folks would wait until AFTER the election, or give me a call. I've got LOTS of yard signs from candidates past that would be more appropriate than current ones for such a recycling project.

Hopefully the person who took my signs have put them to good use (grumble grumble). :(

there are some new people involved in the really really free market this time around... they had plans to use other materials for the yard signs (real estate signs), but did mention the possibility of supplementing these with campaign signs that had fallen down. i don't think anybody is actually stealing signs, but of course anyone looking closely at a sign would not know the difference.

i want to personally apologize for not expressing concerns about using campaign signs before it was too late. some of the organizers from previous really really free markets are proposing to take the signs down, but i think the damage is done.

it would break my heart for this to hurt the really really free market, and my hope is that people who get involved in it have more respect in the future.

vinci

Sorry, I let my disappointment get in the way of my grammar. Read either "persons" or "has" for "person" and "have".

i don't think anybody is actually stealing signs, but of course anyone looking closely at a sign would not know the difference.

When I saw John Herrera's sign underneath the really free market sign it had an oval "re-elect" sticker on it. Herrera used a sticker saying "Re-elect" to reuse his old signs. So yes someone is defacing new signs and repurosing them.

Also it doesn't seem OK to me to just use signs that fell down.

I think the comments above from Vinci are very well put. I assume that Vinci is the webmaster at freemarkets, since at
http://www.rakaposhi.net/freemarket/
it says contact vdaro@email.unc.edu and the directory at
https://www-s3.ais.unc.edu/campus_dir/search.jsp associates that email with one Vinci Daro

i'm not the webmaster, but i have been heavily involved in the organizing for previous carrboro rrfms, including working on the website content. i agree that using fallen but current campaign signs is almost as bad an idea as stealing standing signs- there is no indication for people viewing the signs that they had fallen down and weren't actively removed and then repurposed.

i don't know what to say as far as explaining the rationale for this- i didn't take the idea seriously when it was mentioned and i am ashamed to be associated with it; i'm pretty sure the people who did it are also regretting it, though i can't speak for them.

does anyone think removing the signs would be productive at this point? any other ideas for dealing with it?

vinci

Vinci:

"Repurposed?"

And you think the problem with using fallen but current campaign signs lies in the fact that viewers won't know they were fallen as opposed to "removed and repurposed?"

How about the fact that a candidate paid for them? Isn't that a problem?

--Eric

PS--I'll check back on this thread later tonight. Right now I'm headed out to repurpose my neighbor's Prius.

Vinci, there is no difefernce between taking a fallen sign and taking one out of the ground. In addition to theft of property, the RRFM has deprived these candidates of an opportunity to communicate with voters, which is something that can't be replaced.

The candidates might be gracious enough to not request y'all repay them for the expense of the signs. But you may want to consider doing something to give the candidates a new opportunity to speak to voters, and to demonstrate that the RRFM wants to engage productively with the community. Perhaps you could send an e-mail newsletter to your supporters with information about the candidates and some encouragement to get involved in local issues.

Have you asked any of the candidates what they think of alternative economies or how they would support such efforts?

And you SHOULD remove the signs--whether it will be "productive" or not. (WTF does that mean, BTW? Productive for WHOM?)

It's not like they were "trash picked"--they were STOLEN. To heck with the legality--it's WRONG to steal.

Just for the record, in case people don't get it: my signs were not really, really free.

Depending on the reason why someone might have taken my signs, I might feel really, really free to prosecute.

Just a note...Just because a sign has fallen does not mean the candidate is finished with it. When I see a sign of a candidate I support, I put it back up.

i am hoping that someone who is actually responsible for using the signs will post to this thread- i can't speak for them and at this point i'm going to focus on talking to them rather than trying to explain or analyze what they've done.

But vinci--some of the stolen signs are STILL UP. There is one on Greensboro--before you get to wendy's. Looks like it USED to be a School Board sign...

SOMEONE needs to take some reponsibiltiy. If not you--then whoever oraganized the "Really Really Free cause we advertise with stolen signs" market.

And the bad publicity continues...

Hey, why hasn't the CHH done some "Investigative reporting?"

melanie

Good question, Melanie. I thought the deiscussion about it here would be enough to tip them off. The papers really do seme to be asleep at the wheel this year.

I want to thank Vinci for commenting on this post. We shouldn't try to convict her through guilt by association. Her openness and expression of remorse is admirable. Through transparency and fair discussion we can resolve a lot.

Repetitive expression of "moral indignation" is justified only to a degree. If one or two people weigh in saying that taking signs and reusing them is wrong that should be enough. Let's not reward Vinci's honesty with tons of vindictive comments.

I'm sorry. Did Neal just propose that we have a dictator? A single individual to "represent" us all?

...and did you say you mostly eat out of dumpsters? Dude, come up to campus someday and I'll give you a meal.

To be very clear, I plan to keep my signs AFTER election day, so please don't consider them "up for grabs" - they aren't! If you're worried I'll forget to clean them up, I've kept a log of pretty much every location and person with a sign and plan to recover as many as possible.

Also, I'm re-extending my offer to pickup any candidates signs after the election and return them if a candidate requests me to do so.

As far as fallen signs, please consider putting them back if it is at all possible. Political signs represent a form of free speech - they deserve the same protections.

And Laura, I'd hope you'd consider putting any candidates signs back up, not just those candidates you support. For instance, the type of sign I've repaired most, by far, are Ed Harrison's (which are doing much better since he switched from angled to upright presentation - see Ed, it's possible to learn from previous mistakes). In fact, I keep a hammer handy to fix his and other's staked signs.

Finally, when this issue came to my attention I called vinci to find out what's up. He was quite polite, earnestly apologetic for something that wasn't his fault and told me he'd reach out to the folk that were involved. Thanks vinci for helping out.

Neal,
I understand your motivations, but it would have been a better sense of community for you to put the signs that had blown over back up, and then appropriated them the day after the election.

I wasn't trying to be vindictive--but I AM surprised that SOMEONE associated with the RRFM hasn't taken down ALL the stolen signs. Clearly vinci has contact with the people who put them up, or knows someone who IS in contact with said people. I was simply surprised to see stolen signs still in use.

And I AM surprised the newspaper hasn't picked up on this.

Might be interesting to see if the signs were "repurposed" in a partisan, or random, fashion...

And I think vinci left her(?)self open for criticism when she stated:
"there are some new people involved in the really really free market this time around… they had plans to use other materials for the yard signs (real estate signs), but did mention the possibility of supplementing these with campaign signs that had fallen down. i don't think anybody is actually stealing signs, but of course anyone looking closely at a sign would not know the difference."

That idea should have been quashed IMMEDIATELY. Nor should any attemp to justify the use of those signs have been made. (And that is what the above statements look like to me.)

melanie

Thanks Brian, your comments mirror what I've been trying to find the words to say. I think some folks here are assuming that there's a lot more organization to the RRFM than there is. This is a loose, grassroots effort, largely growing out of individual enthusiasm. I doubt there's anyone specifically in charge, and the fact that Vinci stepped up to speak for them is admirable.

I don't agree with the decision to take signs, particularly while the election season is still wide-open, but the damage is done, and I think it would be shortsighted to let this overshadow the good the RRFM can do. I don't know about others here, but from my one visit to the market event, I can say that it truly seems to benefit a diverse group of folks in Carrboro. Going around to tear down the signs in question is just vindictive, and not helpful to individual campaigns or the community in general.

When it comes down to it, condemning the RRFM for the actions of a few folks is like writing off all of OrangePolitics.org because of one regular contributor. Perhaps all this energy would be better spent by having everyone here come down to the event itself and stir up some interest in Carrboro politics? It would probably be a good opportunity to try to raise the voter turnout...

I don't see removing the signs as vindictive...I see it as aknowledging that they were stolen. I don't blame the entire RRFM for the poor decision to take the signs. However, I would not want to be associated with a group that holds the thought--
"The damage is done." That phrase has been used to justify a great number of terrible things throughout history. Perhaps this seems a small thing, but the principles are large. If I were associated with the movement I would want to see this dealt with.

I've got an idea--take down the stolen signs, and REPAINT THEM with the appropriate candidates messages. It's called RESTITUTION--or "making it right."

Because the cause does NOT justify the means.

I won't be at the RRFM on Saturday--I have to work.

melanie

Thanks to Brian for trying to trying to reign in some of the vitriol.

Ad hominem attacks against the only one who has put herself out there to try to engage the community in discussion and apologize for things that she didn't personally do seems disrespectful and unproductive. Just because Vinci's email address and phone number are on the website for the RRFM doesn't mean she has any control or leadership of the Really Really Free market.

From the website:
"The event is self-organized by everyone who participates. No authority rules over the RRFM. As at previous events, we trust that people sharing rather than competing will be able to find their own ways to cooperate with each other and function smoothly."

So what does that mean? Exactly that, the event is self-organizing. Different people take on different tasks to do to make the thing happen.
I don't agree with the reasoning given by the people who used the signs, and I won't defend their actions, I think it was wrong and I think they should come onto this forum and apologize to the candidates who's signs they used - I can't make them do that though. That's for them to decide.

(Disclosure: I'm the "webmaster" in as far as rakaposhi.net is in my domain and my space for a variety of uses. I'm the one who put the RRFM stuff up at the current URL and maintains it.)

My reading of this thread, Vinci didn't try to justify the actions, rather explain what someone at the table had suggested. She didn't do it and seems like she didn't know what had happened until this thread appeared. I'm not involved in organizing or publicity, I'm the webmaster and I also had no idea about the use of election signs until I read this thread.

I help the RRFM because, like Steve, I think it benefits a lot of people in Carrboro and puts into practice some real alternatives that (from last month's market) seem to be embraced by a wide variety of people in Carrboro. I hope the actions of a few people don't taint the benefits of the RRFM to the community and earn a blanket condemnation of the entire event.

Steve, let's be clear about this, what do you mean by the damage is done? Are you advocating that "repurposed" signs be allowed to stay up because they now serve an alternative good and useful purpose. If someone went to your house and took your car and used it to ferry homeless children to shelters, to deliver homecooked meals to indigent elders, and shuttle the Dalai Lama to and from his place of worship, does it justify that the car remain in the hands of those who took it? Morally, it doesn't matter whether one is talking about a car or a sign. Theft is theft.

There are instances when redistribution of wealth is legitimate and proper. This is clearly not one of them.

Sorry to take this further off-track, but I object to Steve's statement that "condemning the RRFM for the actions of a few folks is like writing off all of OrangePolitics.org because of one regular contributor."

1. I personally take accounatbility for everything published on this domain, which is why

2. There are limits (which I enforce) to what is posted here, including

3. Breaking the law which is not acceptable, even in the comments.

As I said above, there are plenty of things that RRFM people could be doing to make up for this mistake. The ball is in their court if they would like to apologize for their theft or make reparations to the voters and the candiates. If they don't feel the need to correct this mistake, they will run the risk of being associated with the vandals who "repurposed" signs on RRFM's behalf.

hi yall, my name is neal. i tried to send out a couple of things earlier but for some reason i dont think theyve made it up there. im not a tech-guru by any means.

so that there are even more folks commenting on this blog who help with the rrfmarkets, not just tom and vinci and steve, i wanted to throw in a few words.

the idea of using election signs was thrown out at a meeting a couple weeks ago. i painted some of them; after a storm many were gathered up because they were blowing around or lying on the ground. i did and still consider those trash, (as does a certain level of common sense.) when someone puts up public signs everywhere, and then they fall over or get displaced or are getting stepped on or whatever, i look at that and see trash. i still do. i dont see any problem in a reappropriating trash for productive ends. for example, most of the food i eat comes from dumpsters, as does a many other useful things.

i did not intend to cost incredible amounts of money to candidates for office, and i dont think we did. i think we actually used trash creatively. In the future we will be more careful with what signs we use; if we do use trash signs, we'll let people know so that they don't think they were "stolen."

i dont want this to be a bad reflection on the really really free markets. these are incredible resource to our town; they are a way for folks to acquire what they need outside of governmental and capitalist systems. they are a direct way to experience a society that does not place such a high regard on private property.

This being said, i want to also say that myself and many others involved in organizing the really really free markets in carrboro, as well those whove organized them in miami, raliegh, greensboro, san franscisco, and DC, dream of a world without elections. thats right, i said it, we think elections are a bit of a fraud. if we lived in a just society, one person wouldnt be allowed to "represent" thousands of other people, undoubtedly people of a lower economic status than their esteemed "representative." i think representative government is a sham. The idea that people in washington or wherever know better how to run the lives of neighbors and workers and families and farmers, who are more than capable of using direct democracy in collectives to work out problems and produce what they need on their own, is a disgusting, insulting premise responsible for war, capitalism, indiegnous genocide, patriarchy, etc. etc. If you go to our website www.rakaposhi.net/freemarket/ you will find the inklings of these ideas written in between the lines; the idea of direct democracy instead of gopvernment handouts, community participation and self-determination rather than capitalism, is all there. these ideas do not speak for everyone, because we all have different ideas about these things and do not see the markets as a way to push one "party line" but more as way to "experience" anti-capitalism and direct democracy directly.

I want to provide this context because i think people on this listserv or whatever deserve to hear it. At the same time, i do want to sincerely apologize for being involved in the entire situation. In the future we'll try to communicate better with whoever is concerned about their signs.

Nick and myself and others involved in publicizing the free markets have drafted a more formal apology to be sent individually to folks running for office who lost signs. I think nick is also posting it on this site.

i hope when we tear this sick government and economy down, we can all do it together. if not, oh well.

neal

Thank you Ruby. That is what I was trying to say. I thought I was being clear--evidently I was not.

melanie

Ruby, I should have probably realized that statement would be inflamatory. My apologies- it wasn't my intention to impugn OP, a community that I appreciate greatly. My point was that there's no good to be had in attacking Vinci, who didn't need to post here at all, and who I'm sure is working with the RRFM community to try and make this right. The big difference is that while OP has Ruby to ultimately take responsibility and enforce rules, I don't think RRFM (as Tom pointed out) has anyone in that role.

Thanks, Steve. As a former Internationalist volunteer, I understand the collective model in which no individual can step forward and take responsibility for the group.

But this is why it is all the more incumbent on individuals in the collective to do what they can to demonstrate that the RRFM does not stand for theft and political repression. If they don't, the vandals will be the loudest spokespeople for their cause.

Vinci is a she, not a he, who works very hard to help make the free market happen. By the way, the free market isn't free for the folks who take the time to put it on. They pay the Town of Carrboro $100 each time they use the Town Commons for one of these events.

Thanks for the clarification. I called the contact # on the RRFM website and asked for the organizer of the event. HE said he had helped organized the last 3 but wasn't involved in the current effort. I assumed that was "vinci", on re-reading the thread I realize it wasn't...Thank you Jackie.

Well, either my computer hiccupped, or the site hiccuped, and I lost my whole post.

Don't you just HATE that?

Neal Sweet Tea's apology wasn't up when I posted previously. One assumes his psot was being "held for mideration" because he is a first-time poster.

As to his apology...

wow.

I find it intersting that a person who wants to "... tear this sick government and economy down" is participating in an event that takes place on the TOWN Commons. A facility which exists because of the "sick governement and economy." As I recall, the TC was built on Carrboro town property, Aaquired, at some point, with tax money. (It used to be an open field--and Carrboro used to set off 4th of July fireworks there. Back when Carrboro really WAS a small town...) I can't recall exactly how the facility itself was funded (I was chasing after two small children at the time) but have vaugue memories of a combination of town money (taxes again) and a federal grant (more taxes!).

My original post had a brief lesson on Marx, Engels, and the Hegelian Dialectic--but I just can't do that again.

melanie

"held for MODeration" not "Mideration" obviously.

"preview" isn't helping me much these days!

melanie

I met Neal at the last free market and was on the receiving end of one of his signs. I didn't look to see what was on the back. He seems like a nice guy and I really can't believe it was his intention to steal signs. He found them on the ground, considered them trash and used them, for which he has apologized. As far as his political views I will say this: In our youth we all wish we could change the world. We see so many injustices and feel helpless to change them. Odd that 33 years after I cast my ballot for the first time, I feel the same way. The only difference is now I know I can't change the world. All I can do is work with what we've got.

Melanie, I'm sorry you had problems with your post. I, for one, would have enjoyed a rousing discussion on Marx, Engels, and the Hegelian Dialectic.

Jackie, I don't have problems with Neal's politics, but with his sense of right and wrong. Finding campaign signs on the ground and considering them trash is a convenient, cynical, and false interpretation of what is available to the salvager. His apology is baseless if he continues to believe that the signs are rightly for his taking. His decision to stop taking signs--especially in light of his inability to see the wrong in it--is not reason to congratulate or praise him, no more than any wrongdoer should be praised for his public decision to stop committing wrongs. Common decency should be the expected standard.

I wish I could approach this with matter with a greater degree of insouciance, but I have lost signs and I do not have much money.

But really it's more than just the personal loss: I am particularly incensed by Neal's cavalier attitude regarding other people's property. I won't wax nostalgic for the days when I could leave my front door unlocked, or my bicycle in the front yard, or my car unlocked, but, really, isn't that a better way to live? Recently, there's been a rash of stolen bicycles at both the UNC and Duke campuses. I went to buy a lock for my bike, sensing that my simple chain was no longer adequate. The lock I bought was as heavy as my bike! The other day at a store I found a cell phone. Was it abandoned property for my taking? No, and I'm sure that the owner was glad that I turned it in. A few years ago I found a wallet full of cash in the parking lot. I was poor and short on the rent that month. I called the guy and gave it back...intact. He drove up in a late model cadillac to collect his wallet. Any regrets? Hell, no, that money was NEVER mine. I'm not saying this because I think I'm a good person and I want to advertise that. I'm saying that because I think it's what a NORMAL person should do, and NOT be praised for doing it.

Re-read Neal's mea culpa and tell me if it meets the proper elements of an apology: "i did not intend to cost incredible amounts of money to candidates for office, and i dont think we did. i think we actually used trash creatively. In the future we will be more careful with what signs we use; if we do use trash signs, we'll let people know so that they don't think they were “stolen.” "

Neal has no regrets as to the nature of his act, which, for the record, is criminal. Neal never backs down from his stated position that signs no longer belong to the owner once fallen. Rather, he justifies his taking by implying some kind of twisted Jainist reasoning. I am deeply surprised that only Eric and I have chosen to cry foul at this self-serving re-interpretation of personal ownership. Instead, folks have lined up to defend Neal and his cohorts. The freedom and beauty of idealistic feelings and thoughts must be preserved and defended in our youth--and in all of us--but not at the expense of losing what's essential and beautiful in our society: the mutual trust that most of us will defend what's right and condemn what's wrong.

Folks, I know we are a progressive town and part of our ethos requires us to wrestle with the tension between individual rights and the common good. I love that about us. But don't let your sense of equanimity and fair play cloud your judgment into believing that what Neal did is OK, or that a stated opinion has an intrinsic value purely because we believe in the rights to express that opinion.

neal- i don't get what your views on elections and government have to do with using other people's signs for the rrfm. what is the connection? are you intentionally using the opportunity presented by the timing of the rrfm to make a statement about elections?

if so, i would ask you to consider not using the really really free market name in the future. organize whatever events you want wherever, however, and whenever, but the rrfm is a collective and inclusive community project, not something to be used by some people to alienate other people.

if not, please consider returning people's signs to their original use or compensating people for lost signs, and following through on the plan agreed to at the meeting to use your mom's real estate signs instead.

Ruby wrote:

"...it is all the more incumbent on individuals in the collective to do what they can to demonstrate that the RRFM does not stand for theft and political repression. If they don't, the vandals will be the loudest spokespeople for their cause."

i guess this is the lesson I'm learning. this whole thing has kept me up mad all night several times now and i'm at a loss for what to do next.

the "collective" in the past consisted primarily in the really free market listserv, to which we post logistical information and drafts of written material for feedback and collective editing (psas, flyers, mission statement, faqs, etc.). there hasn't been any need for authority because the organizing work has been so simple: reserve and pay for the space, publicize the event, make cleanup/donation plan. the list was the primary means of coordination and negotiation, until now.

this time around, many of the planning decisions have been made independently of the list, and for the most part in direct conflict with concerns expressed on the list. i was personally open to the new organizing approach as an experiment to see what would happen. i guess what's happening is that a few people are using the positive results of other people's previous work to push their own agenda.

though i have no idea what to expect at this month's really really free market, i hope rrfm supporters and participants can appreciate the event as a collective and inclusive community project in the future.

vinci

Vinci, I'm certainly sorry for this to be keeping you up at night - as an expectant mother you need all the sleep you can get! :-)

The point that I hope the Neal and others get is that this is not simply theft (although it is that) it's abridging free speech. Political speech is not the same thing as commercial speech, although have certain consitutional rights to both. While yard signs may seem pointless, they are a part of the electoral conversation.

I can appreciate neal's frustration with the government, and I think that when money gets involved, democracy always loses. But I do believe is representative democracy. There are people who know more and are better policy-amkers than I, and I want to choose which ones of them do it for me. A great example of what they can do is the recent Town Council resolution against the war in Iraq: http://orangepolitics.org/2005/10/thinking-globally/

The RRFM folks might be surprised at how many of their local elected officials agree with the principles of cooperative economics. In fact, I'll bet if they had held the market after the election, many candidates would have happily volunteered their own signs for re-use.

Hello all; I'm new to OP, having recently realized I'm terribly behind in paying attention to my community. This thread is the first thing I saw here. So, on with the commenting!

Ruby said (much earlier), "deprived these candidates of an opportunity to communicate with voters", concerning signage. You're kidding, right? I'm just talking off the top of my head here, no statistics in hand, but I'm pretty sure yard-dart style political signs are a waste of money and effort. I've seen a flurry of these signs everywhere, as every election time, and I've learned nothing from them; they're an eyesore. I'm tempted to take them all down, but, as discussed, I agree that's not right.

These signs, as a collection, signal only one message: "Hey! There's an election coming up!" Perhaps a name or two will be remembered from the sign gardens, but certainly there's no communication going on between the candidates and the voters. I think a more effective, and less ugly, solution would be for the candidates to chip into a fund used to create a single sign declaring the upcoming election and listing a website or notice of some other place from which to obtain information about the candidates. Same effect, less mess.

just my $0.02
(I seem to have changed the subject; sorry about that.)

VInci--

Don't let this keep you up at night. Truly--I wasn't attacking you, rather, I was attacking the attitude I perceived in the taking of the signs. Which, it turns out, WAS the attitude of the person who took the signs. By his own admission.

You have successfully disassociated yourself from that person and his beliefs. You have done your best to disassociate the RRFM from that person and his beliefs. That is all you can do. Sounds like SOMEONE needs a lesson in the realities of life, and it's not you.

Best of luck with your pregnancy and childbirth. Ignore any horror stories you hear.

Jackie--
One would be hard pressed to find a 20 year-old more idealistic than my own son, but even he knows that the end does NOT justify the means, that abridging political speech is wrong, and that one ought not to steal. And that apologies are NOT the time for self-righteous self-justifications.

melanie

I think you're right Ruby, and was about to suggest to candidates to do just that after the elections, since the RRFM plans to do these events more frequently in the future.

Taking things that don't belong to us is wrong. We all learned that at an early age. We also learned that everyone makes mistakes and we have to be able to forgive.

I understand your frustration over losing your signs David, because I feel the same way every time I see one of my photos on a website being used without my permission. It's stealing, the same as with your signs. When this happens I give folks three options: 1) Continue to use my photo and give me credit for it, 2) Pay me a $50 photo usage fee, 3) Remove the photo from the website. This tactic has always worked and has earned me a few bucks in the process, as well as state and national exposure. In most cases the violators honestly believed they weren't doing anything wrong in using my images, operating on the assumption that anything on the Internet is fair game. I have no problem with enlightening them, and everyone is happy in the end.

Perhaps the candidates whose signs were used should come up with some options for Neal, to undo the damage that's been done.

I think we've blown this WAY out of proportion. Candidates signs were taken and used to advertise the RRFM. The culprit, Neal, has confessed and explained his reason for doing so. He found them blowing on the ground. This (and his unique diet) demonstrates the true meaning of "one man's trash is another man's treasure". I think it is time to move on.

How many of your signs were used Laura? Candidates who lost signs, and therefore money, may disagree.

then there are people like me who donated to a candidate that was used to pay for yard signs ... I can't replace that donation since the candidate is at the limit from me that the candidate will take from one donor .... but maybe that candidate's yard signs were not taken ...

Exactly, Gerry. As I said to my loved one last night, I gave donations to certain campaigns so I am certainly injured by this theft, and feel my own political speech has been abridged. Regardless of whether you think yard signs are effective, they are political speech.

If you see money on the ground, is it trash? No, it is lost. If you find a yard sign on the ground, you should put it back up. (Like Will, I have re-installed severall Harrison signs, in spite of my own political preferences.)

Re-installing signs of candidates you might not be aligned with politically is an awesome thing to do and speaks highly of your character, Ruby, and you have inspired me to do the same the next time I do inventory.

Pages

 

Community Guidelines

By using this site, you agree to our community guidelines. Inappropriate or disruptive behavior will result in moderation or eviction.

 

Content license

By contributing to OrangePolitics, you agree to license your contributions under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 3.0 United States License.

Creative Commons License

 
Zircon - This is a contributing Drupal Theme
Design by WeebPal.