The tsunami gubernatorial candidate named Christie swept into office many Republican candidates around the state. In my hometown of Flemington, the two Republican Councilmembers-Elect are Michelle Oberst and Marc Haine. Now, prior to the election I did not know either Mr. Haine or Ms. Oberst that well at all.
But now, I know them by their campaign material.
As it will be the case in small towns in New Jersey, the top issues always seem to be the same, regardless of political party: Property taxes. Quality of life. Traffic. Economic revitalization. And property taxes again.
Both sides focus on their ideas, issues, and initiatives on how to deal with these problems---sometimes not much distinguishes the Republicans from the Democrats.
Except for this year.
This year the Republican team of Oberst/Hain sent out a campaign piece that carried the headline:
“Don’t the Elected Officials in Flemington Have Enough REAL Problems to Deal With?”
Under the headline, in a collage, were pictures that included empty Main Street businesses; buildings with graffiti; broken fences and overflowing trash containers.
And a photo of Latino day laborers waiting outside on private property ---a locally owned convenience store---to be picked up for a day’s work, perhaps landscaping or construction.
This, to the Oberst/Haine team is a “REAL” problem. In conversations with members of the voting public they described these men as “intimidating”, “menacing” and “ruining the quality of life in Flemington”.
The use of such a photo without the consent of those photographed carries several possible problems---assuming that Oberst/Haine failed to get releases from the nine men in the photo. If you're going to photograph or publish photos of people, one should be mindful of the "right to privacy”. To allude to the fact that these folks ----conducting themselves in a perfectly legal manner on private property ----are somehow a “problem” can result in "defamation" or "libel."
The reason this photo was taken and used is obvious on its face: these folks have brown skin and come from a different culture. The use of the photo is inflammatory, and has tinges of racism. The photo may have served to elect Oberst/Haine, but it did nothing to advance the issue of community race relations.
Epilogue: At Monday night’s Flemington Borough Council meeting, one Oberst/Haine supporter defended their right to use such a photo, and asserted:
“About that photo, I am glad it was there. Look, I am not racist. I don't care. I’m not prejudiced. But the other day I drove down Main Street and counted 22 non-whites on Main Street, 10 whites and two bums. And this is what the problem is. I have lived in Flemington for 38 years and these non-whites are having an effect on my quality of life.”
Indeed.
I hope that Ms. Oberst and Mr. Haine show better judgment on the Flemington Borough Council than they did in preparing their campaign material.
Garden State Equality fires new broadside at Dems Smarting over the state Senate's refusal to pass marriage equality and disillusioned at the moment with the Democratic Party majority, Garden State Equality’s 85-member Board of Directors unanimously decided against giving financial contributions to political parties and their affiliated committees. ...
“We will work harder and smarter to protect consumers, to preserve civil rights, to effectively regulate the alcoholic beverage industry, to ensure that the integrity of New Jersey’s casino gaming industry continues, to keep drives, passengers and pedestrians safe on our streets, to assist victims of crimes, and to remember always the importance of juvenile justice on issues affecting the state." -- Attorney General-designate Paula Dow, at her Senate confirmation hearing.
- PolitickerNJ.com, 02/08/10Press releases are submitted by PolitickerNJ users, not by staff. They do not represent the viewpoint of PolitickerNJ.com.
Overly Dramatic
In theory I agree with some of your points. However, while I did not see the described campaign literature, but I don't think it's as bad as you think.
Your point about consent of the day laborers is interesting. You point out that the convenience store is private property. An interesting case can be made that taking a picture of someone's land without their consent is thus a trespass (note the relevant inquiry in this case is consent of the property owner, not the person in the picture). I think that this claim would be interesting, but would fail. It is similar to the famous case of the "Boring" couple in Pennsylvania, who claimed that Google trespassed on their property by putting their home on Google Street View without their consent. The court dismissed the Borings' complaint, saying that the couple could not articulate any reasons that including their property on the Google Street view "would be highly offensive to a reasonable person." While there are no similar New Jersey cases (yet), I can't imagine that the result would be much different here. Unless the convenience store could find something in the picture that is "highly offensive to a reasonable person," they would probably not succeed in a claim against the local politicians.
The day laborers themselves may separately claim that the photograph in some way constitutes defamation or libel. They may well have a claim, but it depends on a lot of things. Nothing untrue is said about the laborers. Punishing the candidates for saying that the photographs depict "problems" would come dangerously close to punishing free speech and thought (it would be a different story if the day laborers were accused, without justification, as criminals or illegal immigrants). These may not be ideal political viewpoints, but they can be dealt with politically, without lightly bringing up legal words like libel.
I've read your posts with interest, but I think you've overly harsh on your county. Hunterdon is conservative, yes, but it's also the wealthiest and best educated county in the state. Your anecdotes are interesting, but I don't think they represent the average voter.