I don't really care about billboards, but they are already banned by states and municipalities.

> I don't really care

That tracks.

> they are already banned by states and municipalities.

Which means nothing to your argument in support of the government denying you your first amendment rights.

I've actually gotten a decent number of responses and yours is the only insult so far. Not too shabby for the internet.

The law is heavily based on precedent. Seems like a big difference between speech and a specific communication mechanism.

If you offer what you care about as a subject for discussion (when nobody asked), you can't play the victim when people acknowledge it.

> yours is the only insult so far

What insult?

> The law is heavily based on precedent.

Yes, and that precedent is on my side.

You admit your ignorance, but when people who aren't ignorant contradict your assertions, you double down on your ignorance and consistently move the goal posts.

At the end of the day, you are arguing in support of violations of the first amendment. If you find that declaration insulting, reevaluate why you insist your ignorance is the right approach.

I take it you’re not really one for HOAs.

Correct.

That being said, I'm also open to other people giving up that right and signing onto an HOA.

However, you have to have that right in the first place to give it up.