I think so. That is something that is actively being discussed. One could make the argument for that and bring it to court.
Why are you okay with the government preventing you from putting a sign up on your property?
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.
The law is heavily based on precedent. Seems like a big difference between speech and a specific communication mechanism.
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.
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.