We're talking about posting public land , not YOUIR OWN LAND.
Pretty sure if you put up an obscene sign seen by your neighbors gov't would tell you to take it down, imagine the horror.
I thought this was public land?
- Thread starter *zap*
- Start date
Pretty sure if you put up an obscene sign seen by your neighbors gov't would tell you to take it down, imagine the horror.
Dos Perros
WKR
I thought we were discussing a private landowner putting a sign on his land making statements about adjacent land. For example, a fence line divides private and public. The private landowner puts a sign on his fence making statements about the land beyond his fence. "YOUR MAP IS WRONG. NO TRESPASSING." I don't see how the government could preclude someone from posting a sign like that. It doesn't meet criteria of the exceptions to the 1st Amendment (obscenity, fraud, child pornography, speech integral to illegal conduct, speech that incites imminent lawless action, speech that violates intellectual property law, true threats, and commercial speech such as advertising).
I would bet this issue is more common than most think. Around here, I know of at least two places where a landowner has a bunch of signs about 50' or so into public. The property lines are actually close to the edge of his fields, and he is trying to keep public land hunters from hunting that edge. Most just avoid the area because they aren't certain of the property line, or want to stay out of confrontation.
EdP
WKR
Word signage requirements similar to this in the legislation:
If a landowner posts a private property sign where private land adjoins public, the back of the sign must face the private. If a private property sign is posted where a public road passes through the private, an additional sign must also be posted within 10 ft and facing the road.
If a landowner posts a private property sign where private land adjoins public, the back of the sign must face the private. If a private property sign is posted where a public road passes through the private, an additional sign must also be posted within 10 ft and facing the road.
Well, the list was not comprehensive, ergo the “etc.”
But I actually think the fraud portion applies, philosophically.
In any case, like I posted earlier, it is already illegal in MT… although the fine is too little:
You do not have the right to defraud the public of their land accessibility by posting a false sign.
If someone wants to challenge this law and make a 1st Amendment “Right to Lie” defense, I would love to see how that works out for them.
The argument is absurd. By that logic, a landowner could sit on an open road on their side of a public/private boundary and turn around the approaching public, telling them they are trespassing and will be arrested if they continue on the roadway.
Dos Perros
WKR
I'm not sure if it would meet the definition fraud. Maybe. Depends on the sign I guess.
My scenario wouldn't be in violation of the Montana law.
Your roadway scenario wouldn't apply to what I'm suggesting because of the use of a true threat. True threats aren't protected speech.
If posting public land were fraud, has anyone sued and won and been awarded damages? I think that'd be the test.
My scenario wouldn't be in violation of the Montana law.
Your roadway scenario wouldn't apply to what I'm suggesting because of the use of a true threat. True threats aren't protected speech.
If posting public land were fraud, has anyone sued and won and been awarded damages? I think that'd be the test.
Last edited:
I appreciate the conversation, DP!
I’m saying it’s speech intended to defraud, and as such is not protected speech. I’m not saying the crime committed is fraud. The crime is the False Posting crime I linked.
Yes, it would be. These illegal postings are almost always on the private side of the fence.
Today I’m out hiking and just came across this a couple minutes ago:
This is a legal posting. If the fence is exactly on the property line, the sign would technically be posted on public property. This isn’t a problem, though, because the sign clearly indicates the land behind the fence is private and closed to the public.
If the sign was on the other side, it would violate the Montana law, even though the sign would technically be posted on the private property. The intent would clearly be to post that the public land was closed to access.
In your “right to lie” scenario the offender admits to his intent to falsely post the land when he claims he has the right to lie.
The threat is the same in both scenarios: arrest. Whether the speech is spoken or written is irrelevant.
You confuse criminal and civil law here. We were talking about crimes and you brought up a 1st amendment defense related to a crime.
But sure, there have been many civil lawsuits about false posting and public access. Many (most?) were won by the public interest.
I’m saying it’s speech intended to defraud, and as such is not protected speech. I’m not saying the crime committed is fraud. The crime is the False Posting crime I linked.
Yes, it would be. These illegal postings are almost always on the private side of the fence.
Today I’m out hiking and just came across this a couple minutes ago:
This is a legal posting. If the fence is exactly on the property line, the sign would technically be posted on public property. This isn’t a problem, though, because the sign clearly indicates the land behind the fence is private and closed to the public.
If the sign was on the other side, it would violate the Montana law, even though the sign would technically be posted on the private property. The intent would clearly be to post that the public land was closed to access.
In your “right to lie” scenario the offender admits to his intent to falsely post the land when he claims he has the right to lie.
The threat is the same in both scenarios: arrest. Whether the speech is spoken or written is irrelevant.
You confuse criminal and civil law here. We were talking about crimes and you brought up a 1st amendment defense related to a crime.
But sure, there have been many civil lawsuits about false posting and public access. Many (most?) were won by the public interest.
Last edited:
I've seen it several times in Wyoming- in and around Johnson County. I don't remember seeing it in the other areas/units I've hunted.
Edit: I should add that the last time I hunted that unit was 4 years ago- so it's quite possible the issues have been resolved.
Last edited:
Dos Perros
WKR
I appreciate the conversation, DP!
I’m saying it’s speech intended to defraud, and as such is not protected speech. I’m not saying the crime committed is fraud. The crime is the False Posting crime I linked.
Yes, it would be. These illegal postings are almost always on the private side of the fence.
Today I’m out hiking and just came across this a couple minutes ago:
This is a legal posting. If the fence is exactly on the property line, the sign would technically be posted on public property. This isn’t a problem, though, because the sign clearly indicates the land behind the fence is private and closed to the public.
If the sign was on the other side, it would violate the Montana law, even though the sign would technically be posted on the private property. The intent would clearly be to post that the public land was closed to access.
In your “right to lie” scenario the offender admits to his intent to falsely post the land when he claims he has the right to lie.
The threat is the same in both scenarios: arrest. If the speech is spoken or written, it’s irrelevant.
You confuse criminal and civil law here. We were talking about crimes and you brought up a 1st amendment defense related to a crime.
But sure, there have been many civil lawsuits about false posting and public access. Many (most?) were won by the public interest.
Would a sign posted on private property adjacent to an abortion clinic that said "Killing babies is a crime against man and God" be protected speech? I think it would be. I see them as equivalent.
I guess what I'm getting at...IMO a savvy landowner could always post something ambiguous enough that he couldn't be convicted of the MT law or any other constitutional law.
"Your map is wrong." That could always be considered a true statement as no maps are perfect. It's also ambiguous.
"No trespassing." Since trespassing is defined by the state, it's just a redundant but also intimidating statement.
Good discussion. I've been discouraged by signs like this before, and then I've also done my research and marched right past them before. I actually appreciate them now because they keep out some folks but not me. That's not to say I don't think the landowners are shitheads (they are), and I would never do it myself as it's immoral.
Blowdowner
WKR
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2022
- Messages
- 374
no guys I’m saying that in response to the comment about no trespassing signs being put too close to a public gate/gap/easement deliberately to make it look like the whole area is private. Maybe 20 ft instead. The issue is each state’s minimum distance between signs for properly posted property.
It isn't remotely equivalent. Your abortion clinic scenario is protected political speech. A reasonable person (which is a legal standard in both criminal and civil law) would know that the speech is making a moral argument, not a legal one. Not so with a No Trespassing sign, which is exclusively a legal warning, by law. This scenario also doesn't include any public land; which is the topic of this thread, defined by law, and a needed element of the crimes we are discussing.
So now you have abandoned the 1st Amendment "Right to Lie" argument altogether. Our whole conversation above was predicated on that. I was contending a 1st Amendment defense for posting public land would be ineffective.
If the landowner is claiming his posting is ambiguous, then he isn't making a 1st amendment claim that he has a right to speech that deceives the public. Rather, he is claiming that he posted his own property according to law, and the complaining public is misunderstanding. The prosecutor (in filing charges), judge (in hearing pretrial motions to dismiss), and ultimately jury (at trial) would have to determine if there was sufficient evidence that he meant to mislead the public. Proving this intent is a common challenge in many criminal prosecutions.
Grundy53
WKR
CMF
WKR
Not with a grinder or bolt cutters....js
CMF
WKR
They still don't clearly define the legality of the roads through private lands most of the time. Some areas have legal access thru private to get to the public, some private sections can gate the road. If there is a way to know using the apps, I'd like to know.
CMF
WKR
If we're talking about posting signs on public land it would be illegal to litter...
Dos Perros
WKR
We are not.
I came across this in Colorado a couple of years ago. A rancher had posted a public section adjacent to his land. The section was a jut into his otherwise straight property line. I needed to use this section because without it I needed to cross a deep ravine. The section allowed me to stay high and go around the ravine.
I checked my gps and the land was clearly public. I ignored his signs and used the public land.
After I was out of the field I called the local game warden and inquired. He brought up his map and agreed that the land was clearly public. He also stated that the penalty for posting public land is the same penalty for trespassing on private land. He said that he'd go pull the signs down the next week. I've never been back to that particular section to see if the signs are still up, or have been re posted. I'll be sure to have some wire cutters with me next time to move the signs to the fence where the landowner actually owns the land on the far side.
I checked my gps and the land was clearly public. I ignored his signs and used the public land.
After I was out of the field I called the local game warden and inquired. He brought up his map and agreed that the land was clearly public. He also stated that the penalty for posting public land is the same penalty for trespassing on private land. He said that he'd go pull the signs down the next week. I've never been back to that particular section to see if the signs are still up, or have been re posted. I'll be sure to have some wire cutters with me next time to move the signs to the fence where the landowner actually owns the land on the far side.
Similar threads
Featured Video
Latest Articles
- TT#64 Josh Boyd Elk Hunting Strategies for Every Season
- Aaron Davidson of Gunwerks
- TT#63 Dirk Durham’s Art of Elk Calling
- BIG Buck Stories with the Dirty Giants Podcast
- TT#62 Brian Barney Hunting Bulls without Calling
- Hoyt Alpha AX-2 SD Review
- Kuiu Kenai vs Outdoor Vitals Vario Hooded Jacket Review
- Hoyt RX-9 Ultra Review
- Hunting Vampire Bucks & Building an Optics Kit
- Darton Sequel ST2 35 Review