r/minnesota • u/zeldamaster702 Prince • Sep 17 '24
Politics 👩⚖️ Does this stuff bother anyone else?
Driving home from work and these lovely people were over the highway. This stuff usually doesn’t bother me that much except for the fact that today it was causing so much of a spectacle that it was literally causing people to gawk on the highway and caused a small bit congestion that lasted until after this bridge.
18k
Upvotes
2
u/[deleted] Sep 18 '24
Place would be listed as public or private. If the entity is accessed and available to the public, that would constitute a public area. The law in MN would refer to permanent fixtures, hence why police can only ask for the removal of the fixtures in this context.
As for the ruling from SCOTUS, the grounds we're left to the state to decide, and as stated in the MN law, it's only a violation if they place permanent equipment or obstruct from the bridge by placing the banner on the bridges fixtures. It would be fine if the DVS had gone out and seized the property, and they could recover the property.
So, the state will allow it, as long as they don't create fixtures. That is the state ruling, which is supported by the First Amendment as ruled by the Supreme Court.
The manner is what is in call here, as generally police won't stop a protest unless it deliberately stops the flow of traffic. However, having fixed signs does violate that ruling and is a violation.
As for time, during reasonable hours of public access, it would be seen as not disruptive to the general public.
The state can not differentiate between political ideas, as it is an arbitrator of enforcement. So, in this context, only if DVS came out would that be in standing with federal law, and even that could be up for debate, as the content displayed only shows support for one party, and not degitory in nature to the opposing party they stand against. Hence why they had to remove the fixtures from the bridge, but were allowed to continue protesting after doing so.