I thought this was public land?

[wytx]

Imagine the government telling you that you can't say what you want to say ON YOUR OWN LAND.

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.

 

[Dos Perros]

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 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).

 

[hh76]

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]

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.

 

[Matt Cashell]

Ok. But putting a sign on your own land doesn't meet any of the criteria you referenced; so, irrelevant.

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:

45-8-115. Illegal posting of state and federal land, MCA

leg.mt.gov

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]

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.

 

[dtrkyman]

It is illegal in New Mexico , problem is the signs are on private so they are not illegal signs, they are just placed in a way to suggest everything past the sign is private, though the road is not even though it cuts through private.

 

[Matt Cashell]

I appreciate the conversation, DP!

I'm not sure if it would meet the definition fraud. Maybe. Depends on the sign I guess.

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.

My scenario wouldn't be in violation of the Montana law.

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.

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.

The threat is the same in both scenarios: arrest. Whether the speech is spoken or written is irrelevant.

If posting public land were fraud, has anyone sued and won and been awarded damages? I think that'd be the test.

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.

 

[Fordguy]

Where are folks getting away with all the time closing CR's? Not that common here in Wyoming but I guess it happens, Lorenz comes to mind bur he got put in his place.
The posted signs at cattle guards are to show land ownership changes at the cattle guard and usually is because no fence to post on parallel to the road.
Posted signs are mostly a problem out on the BLM on the 2 tracks, not CR's in Wyoming anyway.
Road and Bridge Dept have websites that show public roads, just look online and then email the Super if you have questions, pretty simple.

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.

 

[Dos Perros]

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]

? why....so guess can trample all over that 100' of private property. I 100% do not support wrongly posted land or closing roads/trails but basically making a landowner forfeit 100' at or along any access point? NO...land should be properly posted ON the property line.

Then folks would use the 100 ft for access through private.

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.

 

[Matt Cashell]

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.

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.

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.

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.

 

[jri]

W O W A PERSON BUYS SOMETHING PAYS TAXES ON IT AND SOMEBODY THINKS THEY HAVE THE RIGHT TO USE IT.

 

[Matt Cashell]

W O W A PERSON BUYS SOMETHING PAYS TAXES ON IT AND SOMEBODY THINKS THEY HAVE THE RIGHT TO USE IT.

Huh?

 

[Grundy53]

W O W A PERSON BUYS SOMETHING PAYS TAXES ON IT AND SOMEBODY THINKS THEY HAVE THE RIGHT TO USE IT.

Where did you read that?

Sent from my SM-S901U using Tapatalk

 

[CMF]

I wanted to draw a tag last year for bull elk near Rocky Mtn Natl Park and I saw a bunch of posts that there were chains across public road that said “no trespassing” but here’s the catch… the ends of the chain were on the edge of the public road which was anchored to private land. So you had to leave public access road and walk into private land to undue the chain. Posts said G+F were aware but can’t always stay on top of that issue.

Needless to say, I didn’t draw the tag because of that conundrum. I did call G+F to verify and they didn’t have a solid answer for me.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Not with a grinder or bolt cutters....js

 

[CMF]

Hunting apps are fortunately making this less of an issue and allowing hunters to have more confidence in where boundaries and public land are.

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]

That would seem a breech of 1st Amendment? It is not illegal to lie.

If we're talking about posting signs on public land it would be illegal to litter...

 

[Dos Perros]

If we're talking about posting signs on public land it would be illegal to litter...

We are not.

 

[f16jack]

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.