Nothing helps stop Trump bleeding support from the senior woman demographic quite like a young whippersnapper punching a 70-year-old woman to the ground for her support of Harris.
Nothing helps stop Trump bleeding support from the senior woman demographic quite like a young whippersnapper punching a 70-year-old woman to the ground for her support of Harris.
You were also probably electioneering, which you definitely shouldn’t do, even though I agree with your politics
Actually no, because there isn’t a provision about apparel in my state (Pennsylvania) and is thus not considered electioneering. Signs, banners, literature, all a no-go within ten feet (and the line was so long that, if this was enforced, I’d simply go shirtless and hatless for the last… ten minutes we were there?), but it doesn’t say a damn thing about clothing. But thanks for playing.
Edit: lmao @ all the people downvoting as if I’m wrong when not one person there told me I couldn’t wear what I wore. Not the two cops at the metal detector at the front, not any of the cops inside the building, nor the election worker who we got ballots from. I think if it was illegal, they’d have been the first to ask me to leave (and they didn’t), but clearly you all know the local laws better than… people working in the county courthouse. Yeah, I’ll bet lmao
I once drove too fast near a cop and they didn’t pull me over, therefore speeding is legal. And the law doesn’t define specifically what acts can “cause a disturbance”, so that means you just can’t be arrested for it. Right?
Cops regularly miss violations or just don’t feel it’s worth enforcing them when they may have more important things to do. And laws that don’t define specifics mean the laws can generally be applied broadly, not that they can’t be applied at all. You’re in more danger of running afoul of a law that doesn’t define specific acts it applies to, not less. You may be able to get the case thrown out in court if they consider it too ill-defined, but that’s the sort of thing you pay an expensive lawyer to argue, not a reliable get out of jail free card.
All that said, you’re actually right about apparel not being considered electioneering in Pennsylvania. The reasoning for why you came to that belief is bad, but the end belief is correct. The actual rules from the Secretary of State, both say apparel is electioneering:
But that it should not be used to prevent people from voting:
So as long as you’re in the act of voting you’re allowed to wear blatantly political clothing, but if you’re just hanging out by the entrance you’re not.
Did you even look up the actual code?
It makes no particular distinction how electioneering is done. Just none is allowed in any form.
I see you didn’t actually bother to read what I posted. In that link, it says
“21 states prohibit campaign apparel/buttons/stickers/placards” and “Table 2 provides additional information for the 21 states that have statutory restrictions on apparel in the polling place.”
If you scroll down, you will further see that Pennsylvania is not one of those states. The shirt isn’t a poster on a wall. The shirt isn’t soliciting anyone’s vote for any particular candidate. The actual code, as you have so helpfully posted, makes no mention of apparel. It says no person shall solicit people or hang signs, neither of which I did – and the shirt doesn’t count as a person, nor does it count as “posting a sign within the room”. It’s fucking wearing clothing. You could argue that clothing is electioneering all you want, but since the law doesn’t explicitly say wearing clothing is electioneering – where many other states have made the distinction that apparel is or isn’t – I doubt that would hold up in a Pennsylvania court if you had even a slightly competent lawyer, since the law does not codify that wearing clothing is considered electioneering.
You’ll also note that neither the shirt or the hat makes any particular endorsement of any particular candidate, they don’t even specifically name Trump. They do strongly imply I want to be rid of a particular candidate, but it doesn’t tell people to vote for any specific opponent. This also means it fails the “for any political party, political body or candidate” part – they don’t tell anyone to vote for a particular candidate.
It’s okay, I forgive your stupidity.
Dont quit your day job to persue a job in law.
It doesnt need to say it explicitly and its wording is all exclusive.
Or are you going to try and argue a shirt that litterally says “Vote for <canidate>” isnt soliciting because “the law didnt say anything about shirts!”
And for the record i did not say you were electioneering. Merely pointing out clothing can fall into the category of electioneering…
actually, yes, most laws do have to explicitly lay out what is considered illegal, so that you can be charged with a crime under them. That’s kind of a critical part of lawmaking, painstakingly defining what constitutes breaking the law is what prevents legal loopholes. I really hope your day job isn’t in law, if you don’t know that. In this case, they failed to adequately define what constitutes electioneering.
I didn’t wear a shirt that says “Vote for” though. I wore a shirt like this and a hat like this. You’d know that if you actually bothered to read what I wrote. They don’t endorse any specific candidate. Nice strawman tho.
Except it very clearly states whats prohibited. It doesnt need to list every possible ways you could solicit because simplely stating “soliciting is prohibited” is clear.
Do you think murder isn’t actually murder because the law didnt specific the method that is required to be considered murder was commited?..
BTW, Its quite ironic your calling someone stupid for lack of reading comprehension. Do continue, lets see how far you’re willing to dig yourself deeper into this rabbit hole.
It says electioneering is prohibited. It does not elaborate on what that actually means, and whether that covers apparel. Other states do. This one doesn’t. I don’t know why this is so hard for you to comprehend.
Murder is defined rigorously in laws concerning it. You’re right, they do not specify method, but they do have incredible detail and granularity in what constitutes 1st degree murder vs 2nd degree murder vs 3rd degree murder vs manslaughter (which is distinct from 3rd degree murder, though similar), and go into detail clarifying which is which so that criminals may be prosecuted accordingly.
There is no such granularity or clarity on the definition of electioneering in the statute as written. This is not up for debate, it just straight up doesn’t bother defining it. It is plainly visible that it just says “x is prohibited”, without actually defining what is and is not considered x, where other states DO. Your inability to comprehend this is not my problem, if you choose to extract meaning from text that is not there, I don’t know how to help you and will not be engaging with you further since you choose not to listen.
Lastly, *it’s & *you’re. I could also call you stupid for your grammar, if you prefer.
Best of luck in life, sport.
Laws on electioneering can be found state by state here:
https://www.ncsl.org/elections-and-campaigns/electioneering-prohibitions
Since this happened in Florida:
Fla. Stat. § 102.031
150 ft. of the entrance to a polling place, early voting site, or office of the supervisor
Campaign materials/signs/banners/literature
Influencing voters/soliciting votes/political persuasion
Circulating petitions/soliciting signatures
polls/exit polls – Note: there is an exception allowing exit polls
Would not seem to apply to t-shirts or hats, but would apply to signs, banners, etc. within 150 feet.
Im gald we can agree.
deleted by creator