Hey, there! Log in / Register
Brookline to Bush: Pack your bags
By adamg on Wed, 05/31/2006 - 9:01am
Brookline Town Meeting voted to impeach the president last night, 104-52.
Michael Burstein has a complete report, on both that article and other issues, including a ban on residential picketing (i.e., don't think of protesting the Pats' failure to make the Super Bowl in front of Robert Kraft's house). He also explains why he voted against the impeachment measure - it was not out of any love for W.
Topics:
Ad:
Comments
bad move, Brookline
I'm troubled by the residential picketing ban, and dismayed that the Town Meeting voted to make it permanent. There are legitimate reasons to picket a residence, such as when the residence belongs to a slumlord and the afflicted tenants want to let all the neighbors know what a bad citizen he is.
if the owner is truly a
if the owner is truly a slumlord, then he does not reside in his own slummage, and he probably does not care about people picketing his slum. i walk into slummish houses every day and have yet to cross a anti-slum picket line.
No, I'm talking about having
No, I'm talking about having the tenants who live in the slum come to picket the slumlord's personal residence in a fancy place like Brookline. This can have a useful shaming effect.
i stand corrected. that
i stand corrected. that might be an effective strategy. like i said, i walk into these places, and i would love to see them cleaned up.
Yeah, I'd picket whoever came up with that ban.
Definitely don't like that residential picketing ban. I also find myself wondering about its constitutionality--any legal scholars here know if it has precedent elsewhere? Pelican? Adam?
Of course, politically, I can think of reasons why a corporate mogul, slumlord, or other likely target of a picket wouldn't want to call the police and draw even more attention to him/her self. Still, that doesn't mean that a law like this wouldn't have a chilling effect on people just considering the tactic.