Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Odd_Shirt_3556 t1_j8mqztc wrote

What the actual difference is, seems like the guy with the electronic bill board has that on his property and posts whatever he wants.
This guy paid to have his sign on someone else’s property and the property owner took offense or was threatened.
Easy to solve , have a Democrat put the sign on their property.. They can be like electric sign guy who also reports he has been threatened etc. But doesn’t care. It comes down to post what you want, but have the testicular fortitude to do it in or on your property.

−9

CleverName550 OP t1_j8ms49n wrote

Hmm. The owner of the billboard knew the message before he agreed to the business deal. So him being offended by the message doesn't seem plausible and if you are offended by that milquetoast message you aren't going to manage life well because it only gets much harder from there. Lastly, not everyone has the zoning ability or even placement opportunity to erect a billboard along a highly trafficked area.

My main argument is very simple. A deal is a deal. I hope this guy refunded the client at least a pro-rated refund.

9

Odd_Shirt_3556 t1_j8mu337 wrote

The billboard owner and company knew the message.. the article make it sounds like the landowner was threatened. They seem to be 3 different people.

−3