Hacker News Reader

Comment by mmastrac | Hacker News Reader

It's a logo that is more strongly associated with one political party than another, being worn by someone who is presumably armed and in a position of authority. If you cannot see why this is a problem, I don't think I can explain it any more.

View on HN

For some reason I can't imagine many people utilizing that sort of logic with the transgender flag on a hat.

If you were working as an election official, that would still be a problem.

Since it is less incendiary to discuss, what if someone was wearing a Rastafarian style hat in places marijuana bills were on the ballot, is this a conflict?

To avoid the religion argument, let's switch it to a shirt with a big marijuana leaf on it.

In that case, yes. Unless the person is a voter in the act of voting.

I didn't think voters were allowed to have political clothing either? I've heard of some voters asked to turn masks and shirts inside out while they're at the polls.

The PDF linked from the post clarifies the rule for PA: "Wearing a t-shirt or button supporting a candidate, campaign, or political party (except voters in the act of voting)"

(Other jurisdictions may have other rules, of course)

If the colors/hat had become a signalling mechanism by the political movement and were being used to make a political statement, I would say wearing them would be in bad taste. Especially if a member of law enforcement or the military was doing it.

More directly, if the Rastafarian style hat was a prominent display in several recent political rallies for a single party, I think it should be absolutely called into equal question.

Rastafarianism is a religion. I assume religious attire is not restricted.

Is it religious attire if the person wearing it is not religious?

I think argument was that it was worn by an official.

If it was a police officer wearing that or a poll worker, that's not acceptable. If it was a voter in act of voting it is fine.

> It's a logo that is more strongly associated with one political party than another

I doubt the regulations around polling places consider that relevant. I'd guess one party wears cowboy hats more often than the other, but that doesn't make them a political statement.

There is a difference between being in bad taste and being illegal.

> There is a difference between being in bad taste and being illegal.

It's called "letter of the law" vs "spirit of the law",

Purposely violating the principle of the law by abusing loopholes, and proceeding to claim that technically violating the spirit of the law is not illegal because you came up with a loophole that you believe is not incompatible with the letter of the law just goes to show the level of dedication that you have to break the law without being punished for your transgression.

??? do you really not get it?

If I wear a shirt with MEDICARE FOR ALL, GREEN NEW DEAL (or SUPPORT ACA and REJOIN PARIS ACCORDS) on it, that's clear partisan support. That's illegal. Thin blue line flags and "support our troops" are out of place and it's two-faced to pretend it isn't just a signal of partisan support. These are some of the major party issues.

Bad taste has nothing to do with it. If someone wears a SUPPORT THE CURRENT PRESIDENT shirt, that's support of Trump, not endorsement of the concept of government or something nonpartisan.

I agree that things like 'thin blue line' and 'support our troops' have a political element that would be out of bounds in states with these laws, but its not clear to me that the example cited in the story approaches this level of explicit political meaning.

If it is what he says, then it was simply a copy of text that all soldiers swear to when they enlist. The U.S. Army is not a political organization and contains people from all backgrounds.

What really seems to have happened here is that the author was able to reasonably infer this police officers political affiliation from his clothing and that is not what is prohibited in these laws.

>It's a logo that is more strongly associated with one political party than another

As long as you'll admit that BLM falls under this same logic, and should similarly be banned, then you're being consistent.

If not, you're being hypocritical.

Of course! Unlike the other imaginary hypocrisy in this thread, I actually saw someone on reddit say this exactly. They were just there to vote, and they were asked to turn their BLM mask inside out while they were there.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com