[gardenmwm]

No, but common courtesy and cleanliness is something that makes me happy. I’ve lived in neighborhoods that have had rat problems because of a single home that kept trash everywhere. Should I be inconvenienced because someone doesn’t want to do the bare minimum to upkeep their property? Would you be ok if I moved next door to you and hung nazi flags (this has happened to me as well)? When people behave in ways that infringe upon my life, yeah I can be irritated and want to live in an area that they aren’t allowed to do that. People who won’t respect others can continue to live in areas that let them get away with it. I won’t live like that anymore.

[nicoburns]

Causing a rat problem seems very different to letting weeds grow on their lawn. The rats will migrate elsewhere, potentially toward you. The weeds are pretty harmless.

[rayiner]

And there are county-level remedies for nuisances like that.

[lelanthran]

> Would you be ok if I moved next door to you and hung nazi flags (this has happened to me as well)?

Restricting nazi flags also restricts pride flags.

The question is "Would you be okay if I hung flags?"

What about other forms of displaying support? Are posters just a cheaper flag?

[lelanthran]

If you're going to restrict flags, restrict all flags.

Otherwise all you're doing is saying "this neighbourhood only allows support for these politics".

Are you sure you want to go that way?

[tomrod]

Yes, I would be okay with restricting Nazi flags and other known hate paraphernalia.

Pride is not hate, despite modern recasting of homosexuality in scripture by conservative religions.

[lelanthran]

> Yes, I would be okay with restricting Nazi flags and other known hate paraphernalia.

There's already hate-speech laws to address actual hate-speech. I'm still asking if it is a good idea for HOAs to dictate what politics may be openly supported and what politics are not welcome in the neighborhood. There's a lot more nuance here than simply using the most extreme possible case and basing all the rules around that case.

> Pride is not hate, despite modern recasting of homosexuality in scripture by conservative religions.

It's funny that you bring up religious positions :-)

I had pretty much the same conversation recently with a very religious person who was appalled to find out that Satanism isn't against the law, being a Satanist isn't against the law and openly worshipping Satan isn't against the law.

They pretty much said what you are saying:

Them: "But they do animal sacrifice!"

Me: "Yeah, that's not legal".

Them: "So Satanism must* be illegal then."*

Me: "No, you can worship whoever you want to; you just cannot torture animals while doing so. The torturing is illegal, the worshiping is not."

So yeah - proclamations that are in fact hate-speech will run afoul of the law. Political support is not. IOW, Hate speech is illegal, political support is not.

The problem you will often run into when carving out your legal exceptions (for example, saying support for Nazi(ism) is hate speech) is that where do you draw the line?

Okay, we agree - support for Nazis is hate speech.

How about support for a political group that is formally sympathetic to Nazis but is otherwise not active in that regard at all? Do you now move the line to include this case?

What if that group is only informally sympathetic to Nazis?

What if the group is neutral towards Nazis but some members are openly supportive of Nazis?

What if the group is simply neutral to Nazis?

What if the group is only neutral and refuses to issue any formal statement on Nazis, even when asked?

What if the group actually is against the Nazi policies, and formally states this position, but also doesn't think they are a large enough or viable enough threat to spend their time on?

What if the group is only loosely associated with a group which is loosely associated with a group that fulfills one of the above criteria?

At each point above your exceptions get muddier and muddier. At some point your rules will become, in practice, a whitelist of what politics are allowed (all the rest are disallowed).

Basing all rules on the most extreme example is the most reliable way for an authority to extend its power.

"But they are Nazis" is the new "Think of the children".

I didn't buy the "Think of the children" argument back when, and I'm not buying it now just because someone slapped some lipstick on it.

[adwn]

Wtf. Those are not even in the same ballpark. One of them is showing support for people that want to live a "non-standard" lifestyle, the other is showing support for a dictatorial regime that started a world war and murdered millions of people out of some idiotic ideology.

[nsv]

Godwin's law.