Gov’t Reportedly Ordered Church to Remove Pro-Life Signs

[eynon81]

[Indy]

Yeah I'm not seeing how this is overtly political speech. But the whole exercise is a textbook example of how sites like The Blaze have completely tapped into an audience by pulling the same levers every time. You and your religion are under attack by (liberals, atheists, Muslims, the gov't) and the only ones who are going to care or do anything are people from one party.

The victimhood drum is beaten relentlessly by all these outlets, along with endless stories of how other Americans are allowed "privileges" at the expense of either your religious beliefs (e.g., gay marriage) or that you have to finance (e.g., black welfare recipients living a "lucrative" life on your dime).

Any story that can be spun to fit this narrative certainly is, as in this instance, to ratchet up the rage and feelings of victimhood to a boil.

The problem with all this is when you have a group of people bombarding you day in and day out, telling you to look at Those People (and did you hear the latest?!)--it's because they don't want you looking at something else.

[John Galt]

1. the sign is not truly political speech. it's about morals to be sure but i wouldn't call it political.
2. it was about a violation of city ordinance and had nothing to do with speech/content of the sign

ergo

3. the blaze is looking for places to find offense

[Libertarian602]

Town officials get punked out from enforcing a pointless ordinance, and some folks get a sense of moral satisfaction, hollow as it may be. A Win Win, I guess.

[Saz]

Content-based expression is protected, but if the government has a compelling interest and regulates in a manner not intended to suppress free expression then the speech is not protected. Doesn't really matter if it's political or not.

[exploited]

[eynon81]

[exploited]

[Stratego]

My favorite part about the story is the the title tried to be a clickbait.