Virginia S.C rules lee's statue can, indeed, be torn down

[butters]

https://lawandcrime.com/high-profil...-of-government-speech/?utm_source=mostpopular

Governor McKinney had no power to contract away the Commonwealth’s essential power of freedom of government speech in perpetuity by simply signing the 1890 Deed. Similarly, the General Assembly of 1889 had no authority to perpetually bind future administrations’ exercise of government speech through the simple expedient of a joint resolution authorizing the 1890 Deed. The Commonwealth has the power to cease from engaging in a form of government speech when the message conveyed by the expression changes into a message that the Commonwealth does not support, even if some members of the citizenry disagree because, ultimately, the check on the Commonwealth’s government speech must be the electoral process, not the contrary beliefs of a portion of the citizenry, or of a nineteenth-century governor and legislature.

Therefore, any restrictive covenant purportedly created through the 1890 Deed, which would prevent the Commonwealth from moving a monument owned by the Commonwealth and on property owned by the Commonwealth is unenforceable because, at its core, that private property interest is the product of a nineteenth-century attempt to barter away the free exercise of government speech regarding the Lee Monument in perpetuity.

“Assuming arguendo that the Taylor Plaintiffs are correct in claiming that the language in the 1887 Deed and the 1890 Deed created restrictive covenants,” the high court concluded, “those restrictive covenants are unenforceable as contrary to public policy and for being unreasonable because their effect is to compel government speech, by forcing the Commonwealth to express, in perpetuity, a message with which it now disagrees.”

 

[CornusKousa]

Maoist and comrades cheer!!

History and Art museums next!!

Gotta purge society of it's evil whiteness!!

 

[pecksniff]

There is no "erasing of history" in tearing down a Confederate monument. High schools will continue to teach about the Civil War -- and about the Black Codes, Jim Crow and the Civil Rights movement.

OTOH, there is no point other than emotional satisfaction. Tearing down a monument will not provide any African-Americans with good jobs or educations or do anything to lift anybody out of poverty.

 

[pecksniff]

Gotta purge society of it's evil whiteness!!

An excellent idea in this particular case -- most existing Cornfed monuments were put up in the 1920s or thereabouts, not to honor Confederate soldiers but to affirm white supremacy. In the immediate aftermath of the war, Robert E. Lee came out strongly against the idea of such monuments -- as keeping the wounds of the war open and unhealed.

 

[Lazaran]

.
Tearing down the statue WILL deny the white supremacists the sick pleasure they derived from its place of honor in the public square, while also allowing decent Americans the ability to enjoy the public square without being forced to tolerate the white supremacist's / confederacy's petty act of perpetuating their racist mythos.

Good riddance to one of the "Founding Deplorables".

*nods*

 

[pecksniff]

History and Art museums next!!

Usually, a Cornfed statue removed because of public pressure goes into a museum.

 

[CornusKousa]

There is no "erasing of history" in tearing down a Confederate monument.

Mao and Kim said the same thing when they were pushing the 4 olds out of their society for "progress" too.

Funny, ISIS, Nazis and other authoritarians engage in the exact same behavior.

An excellent idea in this particular case

Yes we're all aware of the genocidal hatred the left has of white people.

.
Tearing down the statue WILL deny the white supremacists the sick pleasure they derived from its place of honor in the public square, while also allowing decent Americans the ability to enjoy the public square without being forced to tolerate the white supremacist's / confederacy's petty act of perpetuating their racist mythos.

Good riddance to one of the "Founding Deplorables".

*nods*

Democrat, not deplorable.

Usually, a Cornfed statue removed because of public pressure goes into a museum.

But that would make the museum a systemic racism or something like that right??

Then the museum has to go....right comrade??

This isn't the first time you lot have done this.

 

[pecksniff]

Mao and Kim said the same thing when they were pushing the 4 olds out of their society for "progress" too.

You know there's no equivalence.

But that would make the museum a systemic racism or something like that right??

Then the museum has to go....right comrade??

There are many museums full of Confederate or even Nazi memorabilia. Nobody objects to them.

 

[Lazaran]

.
There's actually an old saying that specifically applies to offensive, repugnant and outdated words and images:

"That - *insert offensive item here* belongs in a museum."

*nods*

 

[YDB95]

Purging a society of its evil whiteness is not the same as purging it of whiteness. Surely even BoBo knows that.

 

[Dribble]

Let some Fascist traitor buy the statue and they can put it on private property and bow their heads and pray to it.

 

[Lazaran]

Purging a society of its evil whiteness is not the same as purging it of whiteness. Surely even BoBo knows that.

You should have bolded "evil" before "whiteness", to help the dimwit.

He needs help.

 

[pecksniff]

Democrat, not deplorable.

Hard to believe Lee would have voted for the Democratic Party in its present formation.

Hard to believe he would have voted for Trump, either -- Lee was very much a gentleman.

 

[Champakian]

Do you even feel the least bit guilty or embarrassed over
your country's imposition of slavery upon its colonies?
I get the impression that you think that
you hold some moral high ground,
but if you are holding everyone
else to the sins of the past,
you should hold yourself
accountable too...

 

[RobDownSouth]

Do you even feel the least bit guilty or embarrassed over
your country's imposition of slavery upon its colonies?
I get the impression that you think that
you hold some moral high ground,
but if you are holding everyone
else to the sins of the past,
you should hold yourself
accountable too...

AJ lecturin' others on being "accountable"....
It doesn't get any better than this, folks!

 

[HisArpy]

Meh, it's a statue.

It's not a "symbol" of anything, it's a statue. If anyone wants to invest a chunk of metal with some kind of reason to hate someone else, that's on them because the statue doesn't care. Nor do the government or the sculptor who created the statue.

 

[HisArpy]

Do you even feel the least bit guilty or embarrassed over
your country's imposition of slavery upon its colonies?
I get the impression that you think that
you hold some moral high ground,
but if you are holding everyone
else to the sins of the past,
you should hold yourself
accountable too...

It's never them or their ancestors or even where they live that's the problem. It's everyone/everything else.

 

[pecksniff]

Do you even feel the least bit guilty or embarrassed over
your country's imposition of slavery upon its colonies?

Is this addressed to the Brits? They never imposed slavery on the colonies by Act of Parliament or something -- the Portuguese traders simply showed up with the slaves in Virginia and Massachusetts, and the colonists bought them, because, hey, cheap labor.

 

[pecksniff]

Meh, it's a statue.

It's not a "symbol" of anything, it's a statue. If anyone wants to invest a chunk of metal with some kind of reason to hate someone else, that's on them because the statue doesn't care. Nor do the government or the sculptor who created the statue.

Of course it is a symbol, that is the point of putting up a war memorial.

 

[JohnnySavage]

Is this addressed to the Brits? They never imposed slavery on the colonies by Act of Parliament or something -- the Portuguese traders simply showed up with the slaves in Virginia and Massachusetts, and the colonists bought them, because, hey, cheap labor.

What about India? They absolutely commissioned the East India Company to acquire and transport slaves to the tea farms there. Great Britian indirectly supported and encouraged slavery in various locations throughout the world well after it was abolished in the United States.

 

[ll74]

Meh, it's a statue.

It's not a "symbol" of anything, it's a statue. If anyone wants to invest a chunk of metal with some kind of reason to hate someone else, that's on them because the statue doesn't care. Nor do the government or the sculptor who created the statue.

Why did the government create the statue? Why do people want the statue taken down? Why do people want it to stay?

If it weren't a symbol of something, would it even have been put up in the first place? Would people even care to defend or attack it?

If it's just a hunk of metal - do people argue over other hunks of metal? Do people argue to take down bike racks? Do people defend bike racks for their history?

Minimizing the significance of statues that were put up by government with the support of the historical majority and that have been taken down with the support of the current majority, means more than you give it credit for in every way. And it will be recorded in history with significance just as it was when it was put up.

 

[HisArpy]

Of course it is a symbol, that is the point of putting up a war memorial.

You need to work on your understanding of how things work.

It's not a symbol, it's a statue. It doesn't have values, projections, fears, hatreds, or weaknesses. Those things are only what you project onto it. It doesn't have any of those things in itself, it's purpose it to make you reflect ON YOURS.

If you find ugliness in it, then the ugliness comes from inside YOU.

 

[ll74]

You need to work on your understanding of how things work.

It's not a symbol, it's a statue. It doesn't have values, projections, fears, hatreds, or weaknesses. Those things are only what you project onto it. It doesn't have any of those things in itself, it's purpose it to make you reflect ON YOURS.

If you find ugliness in it, then the ugliness comes from inside YOU.

People project their values onto sayings on money. anthems. flags.

And when people don't share their views on those symbols, I'm sure they don't get upset either.

:/

You still are failing to acknowledge why the symbols exist in the first place. People put them up for a reason and take them down for a reason. And when majorities support the efforts, that also means minorities may not. Both see more than a statue.

 

[HisArpy]

Why did the government create the statue? Why do people want the statue taken down? Why do people want it to stay?

If it weren't a symbol of something, would it even have been put up in the first place? Would people even care to defend or attack it?

If it's just a hunk of metal - do people argue over other hunks of metal? Do people argue to take down bike racks? Do people defend bike racks for their history?

Minimizing the significance of statues that were put up by government with the support of the historical majority and that have been taken down with the support of the current majority, means more than you give it credit for in every way. And it will be recorded in history with significance just as it was when it was put up.

People need objects to project their irrationalities through. Just like the idiots who say "all guns are bad", it's the object they vilify instead of the actions of people who act irrationally.

Tearing down the statute will not bring back any of the lives lost which the statue reminds us of. It won't restore the damages caused by the war. It won't do anything for the past.

Yet, for some reason, you and others who feel like you, seem to think that getting rid of the statue will change history. It won't. All it will do is create less clutter on today's skyline. Nor will getting rid of the statue change anything today. Or even for tomorrow.

It won't because the statue doesn't embody human nature or the ability of people to fuck things up. Only people can do that.

So, if you want to take the statue down, then ... meh. It's a statue.

 

[ll74]

People need objects to project their irrationalities through. Just like the idiots who say "all guns are bad", it's the object they vilify instead of the actions of people who act irrationally.

Tearing down the statute will not bring back any of the lives lost which the statue reminds us of. It won't restore the damages caused by the war. It won't do anything for the past.

Yet, for some reason, you and others who feel like you, seem to think that getting rid of the statue will change history. It won't. All it will do is create less clutter on today's skyline. Nor will getting rid of the statue change anything today. Or even for tomorrow.

It won't because the statue doesn't embody human nature or the ability of people to fuck things up. Only people can do that.

So, if you want to take the statue down, then ... meh. It's a statue.

You truly don't understand what symbols represent.

When the government produces those symbols, citizens of the country are saying that it's more than the symbol - it's a representation of the country.

That is why the statue is being torn down - people don't want it to represent the country because the SYMBOL is saying something more than the STATUE

No wonder you don't get it.