Political Flags

There is nothing in rules at our condo about political flags but someone is flying one now that I find offensive is there anything I can do? I am in Florida

UGH

But for the archives, and as I believe CathyA3 knows, only when there is a covenant that applies and applies well. Said covenants are pretty rare. Some have been thrown out. E.g. a covenant prohibiting all flags now must permit people to fly the U. S. flag, though pursuant to HOA guidelines.

A HOA member habitually uttering, say, racist remarks at a neighbor, may result in a Fair Housing Act claim of a hostile environment on the basis of race. HUD says said claim under some circumstances may place a burden on the HOA to take action.

We really need to know where this flag is, Edward. Is it attached to a flagpole? Is the flagpole installed on the person's balcony? Or in your condo's common area?

When you write "flying" it doesn't sound like it's in the window of the person's separate interest condo. Our condo rules permit such a flag, but we limit the size.

Our balconies are exclusive use ("limited use") common area. We must permit the US flag (on them) on them but it may not be permanently attached to any part of the balcony's structure, e.g., railing ceiling, etc.

Please describe the location of this political flag and how it is attached.

I would bet a year salary the flag is a Trump 2020. It doesn't have the same rights as a US or State flag.

I think you're probably right, George. But we don't know where this "flag" is, common area ? Exclusive use common area? Separate interest yard? In our condo HOA, residents may post any non-comercial sign, flag or banner in their separate interest windows -- not to exceed a certain size--that they wish.

Our documents limit political signs to 24'x36" kind of mum on flags, refers to the US Flag code.

Yup, but covenants are what restrict things in HOAs. Even if the membership voted to create a covenant that prohibited, say, criticism of the HOA posted on a web site, a court would find this unconstitutional.

You may be correct about what a court would do, but in a case like this it would be the Terms of Service of the particular web site that would limit the person's speech, not the HOA itself (no matter what the HOA would like to do - and I agree that a covenant like that would be useless).

For instance, this web site's rules forbid/discourage posting identifiable information about specific HOAs, so I imagine if someone here repeatedly posted criticism about their HOA or the board members by name, something would be done about it.

And even in the places where the First Amendment applies, it still has limitations (eg. laws against defamation or the inciting of violence). Similarly, even if a condo association's CC&Rs are silent about signs and flags, Fair Housing laws would require the board to do something about ones that create a hostile environment for protected classes. And you always have the "nuisance" restrictions, although they're vague enough to make them hard to enforce.

Sure, but we are talking about what expression a HOA may lawfully prohibit. Of course this issue has become particularly interesting (and loaded, IMO) in the last couple of years, as the Trumpster has used media to disseminate nonsense, some of it indeed inciting violence or likely to cause people "harm." (In quotations because I am talking about the many exacting legal permutations of what "harm" is.) Twitter, Facebook et al. have been taken to task for publishing (via its users' posts) non-facts. It is a loaded issue to me (to say the least), because when it comes to ideas well-debated in public forums, the response to non-facts should be to point out that this is nonsense. (On the third hand and to totally digress, I am one of those people who resents the ACLU spending donors' money to defend, for example, the Ku Klux Klan's right to effin' "peaceably" protest. The Klan can afford to pay its own d-mn lawyer.)

I agree that, when someone posts something to a web site, a HOA has the option to sue for defamation or possibly inciting violence when someone posts something to a web site. The person who posted the alleged defamatory or violence-promoting statements can then counter-sue using (in some states) SLAPP laws or the usual defenses to defamation.

I think it's important for HOA members to be able to start their own online forums that are constructively critical of a board. I think that, when a board is breaking the law in egregious ways that cause property damage; jeopardize people's safety; and the like, having the right to speak out against this (yes, quasi-governmental) conduct goes to the core of why the First Amendment exists.

The "constructively critical" is the goal. As I think you know, the legal truth is that posts to an unmoderated forum where people lie, but do not know they are lying, is generally lawful. It's the price of the marketplace of ideas when it comes to important issues.

I think the need for T.O.S. and a moderator depends on how seriously the sponsor of the online forum wants to be taken.

I know many boards do not like criticism posted to online forums. Some of these boards are genuinely breaking the law and jeopardizing property. Other boards are doing everything right and facing an ignorant member. E.g. I saw a HOA member claim, pro se in his lawsuit's brief, that the imposition of the covenant-authorized monthly assessment was a violation of the 13th amendment to the Constitution (the amendment prohibiting slavery).

Of course I do not want good people driven off boards because some ignorant bad apples are spreading falsehoods. Nor do I want boards getting away with embezzlement, not maintaining common areas such that sewage is backing up into people's homes, harassment and the like. Then there is the important reality that boards can use members' money to put out the boards' own lies, via the attorney and manager publications. Do you know that the typical ignorant member thinks that the HOA attorney is always Thee Authority on the law? When in fact the HOA attorney is a paid mouthpiece for a board, whose duty is to defend the board under nearly all circumstances.

Members do not have these same, important advantages.

Just saying, for the archives.

Amen to that. I may have slipped up a few times over the years, but that's precisely why I assiduously avoid posting too many details about my HOA or my person on here. I don't believe anyone that lives (or has lived) in my HOA has ever heard of HOATalk, and I'd like to keep it that way.

There's still talk in the neighborhood about the last time a major project was completed and how numerous people believe that a board member at the time was arranging for kickbacks that ended up paying for his and his wife's 14-day Caribbean cruise. One homeowner wrote an anonymous letter to the editor of the local newspaper that got published. It named the HOA and many thought it did harm to the community by publicizing the dirty laundry.

I've never seen it myself, and it happened several years before I moved in. I think, from what I've heard (and that is indeed hearsay), it mentioned the name of the HOA, the allegation that someone was getting kickbacks, and that there were those who believed the allegation was true.

I don't think news media are liable for what people say in Letters to the Editor (with a proper disclaimer?), but I'm not sure. I do know there's plenty of malarky that appears in print daily.

The only way a board can legally get away with prohibiting flags is if they ban ALL flags (except the American flag). I don't know about military flag case law, but I would have to think that falls into the first bucket of banning all flags.

Here's a link to the story: https://kdvr.com/news/local/hoa-tells-local-police-chaplain-to-remove-thin-blue-line-flag/

I get that it might be in their CCRs. It is the supposed selective enforcement that I have an issue with it. I am glad we never really had to deal with this in our HOA when I was on the board. Though the HOA up the street made national news with their attempt to prohibit sidewalk chalk by kids.

A good example is if they allow BLM flags and not the Thin Blue Line flag, that is selective enforcement. Right? If they only allow the US Flag and not others, fine. I don't live in this HOA and only know what the news reported. I am glad we don't have any issues in our HOA. I think common sense governs our HOA. We haven't had any issues with political signs, yard sale signs, etc. The only thing we have some slight issues are real estate signs. We just ensure the realtor watches out for our sprinkler lines when they are placed. And that the sign is promptly removed after the sale is finalized.

Keep in mind that many States have adopted laws the allow political signs, regardless of what covenants say.

Tim's right to point this out. In our Calif. condos, for instance, we must allow any non-commercial signs or banners in units' windows. (the only commercial signs are for sale or lease). This opposes our old CC&Rs.

We can & do restrict the size and umber of these items. WE'll see what might emerge as we get loser to the election. Our building is about 1/3 democrats, 1/3 republicans an 1/3 independents.