GREENWICH — Signs placed on public property throughout Greenwich by the Greenwich Patriots were reported stolen last week, and police said two town residents are facing misdemeanor larceny charges in connection with the thefts.
But the arrests have not deterred people from meddling with her signs, said Jackie Homan — founder of the Patriots, a group opposed to masks and COVID-19 vaccinations for children and the alleged teaching of critical race theory in schools.
More of the signs, which say “Do you love freedom?” have been damaged or vandalized in the past several days, according to Homan and police. In some cases, the word “freedom” has been covered with another word, such as “fascism” or “censorship” or with the letters “BLM,” a reference to the Black Lives Matter movement.
“Taking signs and defacing them is criminal activity,” First Selectman Fred Camillo said Monday. “The BLM graffiti that we’re seeing is just that — it’s graffiti and it’s illegal. These people are breaking the law … and, if caught, they’re going to be arrested and prosecuted.”
The signs are not affiliated with either of the two major political parties in town. But the signs, and the group that placed them, reflect a controversial ideology that sparked a criminal response from opponents. And they have raised oft-recurring questions about political signs in Greenwich and what is, and is not, permitted.
A perennial problem
Vandalizing and stealing signs is not new in Greenwich, despite the town’s long-held position that people have the right to place them on public property.
The Supreme Court has ruled that signs on private property are permitted and protected under the First Amendment. In Greenwich, that right extends to public property as well. According to Camillo, unless a sign placed on public property blocks a sightline or is deemed obscene, the town is not in the business of removing or policing the signs. And because signs are private property, residents do not have the right to remove them, he said.
“If you think a sign has been placed illegally, or is offensive, or questionable, don’t take the law into your own hands,” Camillo said. “You can notify officials. Don’t try to touch it, move it, spray paint it. That is illegal and you’re going to get in trouble.”
But the rules on what signs can, or cannot, be placed on public property gets muddy when it comes to elections.
Last fall, signs linking Greenwich Republicans with then-President Donald J. Trump were placed throughout town by Greenwich Voices for Democracy, which is a Democratic PAC. The signs were stolen en masse, prompting a police investigation and a rebuke of the thieves from Camillo.
Though Camillo is a Republican and part of the group targeted by the signs, he spoke out against their theft and in defense of free speech.
“You’ve got to be very careful,” he said. “The First Amendment is pretty well etched in stone.”
But the theft of signs is common — even on private property — despite these well-established rights, Greenwich Democratic Town Committee Chair Joe Angland said. In the months leading up to the presidential election, he said he and many other Democrats in town had their Joe Biden signs stolen from their property.
Rancor around political signs is such that Camillo, Angland and Republican Town Committee Chair Dan Quigley briefly discussed last year penning official regulations for them. Interest in codifying such regulations waned, though, and Camillo said the preference on all sides was to uphold a longstanding “gentleman’s agreement” regarding political signs ahead of elections.
Per the agreement, which Camillo said likely dates back at least 20 years, campaigns backed by either party can place signs on public property two weeks ahead of a general election or primary. Following the event, the signs must then come down.
Candidates largely honor the deal, Angland said, though there is always the occasional campaign that either intentionally disregards it or unintentionally finds itself in breach. But, typically, party leaders can work on some kind of compromise, he said.
But the Greenwich Patriots’ signs fall into a kind of gray area. And the group’s positions have come under fire after posting signs in early June, that said “Stand Up Greenwich, Unmask our children, ban critical race theory, protect medical freedom.”
The state Department of Public Health encourages all residents to get vaccinated, especially as COVID-19 cases increase due to the delta variant. The federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is recommending that students wear masks in schools, which is also mandated in Connecticut. The COVID-19 vaccine is not mandatory for children, according to the state, but district officials have been encouraged to share information with students about it.
As for critical race theory, it is an academic framework for viewing race and power in relation to American history. Its alleged presence in schools has been the source of debate in the last year and has polarized people in Greenwich, as well as nationally. But Superintendent of Schools Toni Jones has repeatedly denied that critical race theory is taught in Greenwich Schools.
The signs from the Greenwich Patriots are political in nature, but not tied to any one party. They inspired an impassioned response from supporters and detractors alike. And, according to town officials, they are legally placed, even if to some they may seem a nuisance.
According to Quigley, the signs are a product of a factional political moment.
“I think that the issue of political signs is a tough nut to crack,” he said. “Social media has been a springboard for more grassroots political movements, and signage is a natural extension of that. So, with that, eventually, some groups feel empowered to push the envelope in terms of what they put on their signs. The fact that this is all happening during a politically divisive period in our history is not surprising. I guess it’s really just a sign of the times.”
justin.papp@scni.com; @justinjpapp1; 203-842-2586
