"I'm not a football fan, I'm not a sports fan, but I'm surely a Donald Trump fan," said Joe Hornick
A New Jersey man who's been flying Donald Trump's campaign flag in front of his home since February could face up to a $2,000 fine or jail time when he faces a judge in the case.
Joe Hornick has been flying Trump's "Make America Great Again" flag outside his West Long Branch home on a busy corner near the Monmouth University campus for months.
But he got a ticket recently citing him for illegally posting political signage more than 30 days before an election. The New Jersey presidential primary isn't until June 7.
"I'm not a football fan, I'm not a sports fan, but I'm surely a Donald Trump fan," he told NBC 4 New York.
Hornick actually flies two Trump flags day and night, and lights them up when it gets dark. They've been ripped down five times so far.
"Let them come, let them rip those flags down because I have a warehouse on alert, and I'll put up a flag every time they tear one down," he said.
Hornick is ready to face a judge. If he loses the flag fight in court. Hornick is prepared to serve the sentence.
"I'm not taking the flag down, and if I do 90 days in jail, I'll do 90 days in jail," he said.
Hornick says he once saw Trump at a Trump casino but didn't try to greet him.
"To be honest with you, I didn't get up because I was at the blackjack table and I was actually trying to rob him," he joked.
But that was then, he says, and this is now. And if Trump loses, Hornick says he'll shred his voter registration card and never vote again.
And he'll keep flying that flag.
Poster Comment:
He could help make Jersey great again, by moving to New York.
And if Trump loses, Hornick says he'll shred his voter registration card and never vote again.
Good.
Unfortunately, he's probably lying.
He'll lose this case in court. Unless he can get ACLU or another public-interest legal group to appeal to strike down the law, he won't win on appeal either. Given what NJ is like, I don't see much hope he can prevail on appeal.
But I am 100% in favor of him fighting this to the bitter end.
This seems like a straight First Amendment case to me. Political speech, above all other speech, is constitutionally protected. I don't see how a political sign on private property can be restricted to some time period before an election. This seems like a law that's ripe for striking. Of all speech, political speech is the most protected, and this is right across the center of the plate of political speech.
Doesn't matter if it's Trump or Mao Tse Tung who's being advocated.
This seems like a straight First Amendment case to me. Political speech, above all other speech, is constitutionally protected. I don't see how a political sign on private property can be restricted to some time period before an election. This seems like a law that's ripe for striking. Of all speech, political speech is the most protected, and this is right across the center of the plate of political speech.
We'll see. The homeowner doesn't look like a typical ACLU client but maybe they'll help him.
Being NJ which is historically among the most fascist states in the country, I don't think the state's courts are likely to be sympathetic. This is a case that would have to go federal. It's been almost a century since the mayor of Camden sent cops out to bust protesters for reading the Constitution and Bill of Rights to a crowd in public.
We'll see. The homeowner doesn't look like a typical ACLU client but maybe they'll help him.
Being NJ which is historically among the most fascist states in the country, I don't think the state's courts are likely to be sympathetic. This is a case that would have to go federal. It's been almost a century since the mayor of Camden sent cops out to bust protesters for reading the Constitution and Bill of Rights to a crowd in public.
It's probably not worth the fight for this guy. Still, if it got to the Supremes, I'd expect that it would be about 7-2 that this is constitutionally protected speech.
It's kind of pointless speech, but protected. However, to assert the right, the guy has to win.
It's kind of pointless speech, but protected. However, to assert the right, the guy has to win.
He's already said it is not a political sign at all.
But it has Trump's name and his campaign slogan on it.
I don't think most public-interest law firms would want to take on a client like that. His statements are already pretty damaging to any case he might file.
But I am 100% in favor of him litigating it all the way to the Supreme Court.
