Union can't beam words onto walls

[Omaha Steve]

Source: Philly.com

Wayne Parry

ATLANTIC CITY - A judge on Thursday banned an Atlantic City union from using a light projector to beam critical messages onto the exterior walls of casinos owned or about to be owned by billionaire Carl Icahn.

Trump Entertainment Resorts got an injunction barring Local 54 of the Unite Here union from beaming the messages onto the Taj Mahal, the Tropicana, and the shuttered Trump Plaza.

They used the projector to beam messages such as "Boycott Taj" onto the walls of the casinos at night, a favorite tactic during their yearlong battle with Icahn over benefits and working conditions.

The ruling came hours after the New Jersey State AFL-CIO asked union members to boycott the Tropicana and the Taj Mahal. The group cited a bitter fight between the Taj Mahal and Local 54 over the company's termination of health insurance and pension plans for workers.


Read more at http://www.philly.com/philly/business/20150828_Union_can_t_beam_words_onto_walls.html#EPKGxjYBjpt3DKXh.99

FULL story at link.

Read more: http://www.philly.com/philly/business/20150828_Union_can_t_beam_words_onto_walls.html

[marym625]

1. WTF!?

That's really out there. I hope this is appealed

[christx30]

4. I can understand it.

I wouldn't allow anyone to project "christx30 is a jerk" onto the walls of my house. Can't use my own property to speak out against me.
If the union has a beef, march and protest with signs like anyone else.

[marym625]

6. sorry but I disagree.

It's a pretty inventive ways to protest. Unless you are going to take away their right to be light outside their property, they'll have to deal with it. Make them shine a light on their own building so it can't be seen. Problem solved

[metalbot]

9. Where do you draw the line?

Would you be ok with the Westboro Baptist church doing the same thing? Would you call it "inventive"?

[marym625]

10. of course not.

But unless you're going to take the right from people and corporations to beam light outside their own property, then they shouldn't have to stop.

I'm not okay with the Nazis marching in Skokie or the Klan marching in Marquette Park either. But I support their right to do so

[mahatmakanejeeves]

11. "... take the right from people and corporations to beam light outside their own property,..."

Last edited Fri Aug 28, 2015, 02:29 PM - Edit history (2)

That, of course, is not the issue.

The protesters are free to beam any message they want onto the clouds all night long. What they are not free to do is to beam their message onto and make it appear as a display on someone else's property. The protesters are forcing someone else to display their message.

Your contention is that the Westboro Baptist Church is free to set up shop in the street outside my house, beam "The Bible says it's one man and one woman. Burn in hell, faggots." onto the side of my house, and I just have to like it. Even though WBC is making it appear that those are my sentiments, there's nothing I can do about it.

I disagree. I disagree a lot. They are not free to put words in my mouth. That is what this ruling says.

ETA: On the other hand, if they set up shop on public property with the same message, then there is nothing I can do to stop them. I am free to ignore them, and I am free to counter their message, but I cannot stop them.

There is a world of difference between those two situations.

[thesquanderer]

8. You generally can't protest on someone else's private property.

See items 2 and 3 on this ACLU page...

https://www.aclu.org/know-your-rights/demonstrations-and-protests

I suppose there is a gray area here in that the protestors themselves were not on private property, though the protest element itself occurred on private property.

It is a complicated issue. See...

https://www.littler.com/california-supreme-court-permits-picketing-private-property

[olddots]

2. file a suit about the casino's light polution

these fucking greed businesses are failing everyone but the trumperites .

[Lindsay]

3. Freedom of speech

unless it annoys a corporation, or otherwise inconveniences the 1%.

[marym625]

5. +100

[Throd]

7. I'm going to have to agree with the judge on this one.

Beaming a message onto a building you don't own is a violation of the owner's property rights.

[lostnfound]

12. Light waves vs sound waves - does that mean sound that crosses property boundary is also prohibited?

Weird legal area.

[Throd]

13. Noise ordinances usually cover that.

[petronius]

15. Perhaps the distinction would be whether or not the speech required the sound

wave to interact with the private property: a protest chant that was merely audible on the property, versus a protest chant that required an echo from the building as a component of the expression?

Interesting case...

[ripcord]

18. We had an obnoxious neighbor

Who was fined for shining la spotlight into people's windows.

[jtuck004]

14. Too bad the workers don't have a right to a living wage. But protect that building...

When I hear there are laws to protect some rich ass clown's building, and not the economics which provide a decent life for a worker, I think the people who are running that state must be the kind that Malcom X was describing in his speech...

...
To understand this, you have to go back to what [the] young brother here referred to as the house Negro and the field Negro -- back during slavery. There was two kinds of slaves. There was the house Negro and the field Negro. The house Negroes - they lived in the house with master, they dressed pretty good, they ate good 'cause they ate his food -- what he left. They lived in the attic or the basement, but still they lived near the master; and they loved their master more than the master loved himself. They would give their life to save the master's house quicker than the master would. The house Negro, if the master said, "We got a good house here," the house Negro would say, "Yeah, we got a good house here." Whenever the master said "we," he said "we." That's how you can tell a house Negro.

...

http://field-negro.blogspot.com/2012/05/its-21st-century-but-house-negro-is.htm

[Throd]

16. This isn't about a living wage or whether the building owner is a rich ass-clown.

The union shouldn't be beaming messages on the casino any more than an anti-choice group should be beaming "Baby Murder Inc." on the side of a Planned Parenthood building.

[jtuck004]

17. So mortar is more important to you than worker's lives. I see the message fits.

Frankly, the anti groups can beam whatever they want. I'm not afraid of them - that's your problem.

In my country we believe in free speech, even wrote it into our constitution.

Since those messages would be gone when the light comes on, there is no permanent damage, but there would be if we let fascists and their "very passionate" people tell us the building is more important that people's lives.

In this country we have a choice - you can write pretty much whatever you want, send political messages out...

It's my choice as to whether I waste the time reading it.


bye.

[Throd]

21. Don't be willingly dense. Nobody is weighing worker's lives versus mortar.

They can park a truck with a giant sign on it in font of the building on the street if they want. Projecting an unwanted image on a building is altering the building.

Free speech means you can beam your message on to your own property, not someone else's.

[OrwellwasRight]

19. I suppose the rich ass clown has a right to silence as well

so if a public protest can be heard on his property, he can shut the union down? This makes no sense.

[Throd]

22. I don't think there is a right to silence.

[OrwellwasRight]

23. Then how is there a right to "no light"? Nt

[SpankMe]

20. Minor setback.

I get the ruling, although I'd still do it as an act of civil disobedience.

If they can't project on to the casino's walls, then they should project on nearby bridges and other public or quasi public structures in the vicinity in view of the public.

As an aside, projecting messages, art, and innovative 3-D imaging on buildings is very cool. They call it "projection mapping". See here for an example:

This is projecting moving 3-D images on to buildings using the buildings and their geometry as the projection screen, and using the architectural features of the building itself to enhance the 3-D effect.