[robertpaulsen]

Assuming that he erected the flagpole when it was OK to do so, and assuming the new restrictions were retroactive, it doesn't change much.

He could have taken it down until the issue was resolved. Obviously, the judge agreed.

I'm not a real big fan of, "I think the rule/law/regulation is stupid, and rather than working to change it, I'll break it, call the press, and act the martyr".

Do you have another link that tells a more complete story?

[sandmanbr]

I'm not a real big fan of, "I think the rule/law/regulation is stupid, and rather than working to change it, I'll break it, call the press, and act the martyr".

Disregarding unjust laws is as American as the Declaration of Independence.

[=Intervention=]

You're basing your entire argument on guesswork -- that the law was retroactive (never mind that retroactive laws in themselves have a rather checkered history -- so much so that the Constitution forbids Congress from passing them). Your initial reaction is predictably leftist, and thus, just more media regurgitation. He may be guilty of doing what you described, but until more data flows in, I'll take the little guy's side, not that of the homeowner's association.