Vandalism is normally not considered violence, since it causes property damage, not bodily harm.

Also, consider the incentives involved. You're assuming the landlord doesn't like the sign; but perhaps he's really just afraid of vandalism. Since the tenant is not liable (unless the sign breaks a valid lease provision), the landlord will have to eat the cost of any vandalism (either directly, or in the form of higher insurance costs) unless he can track down and recover from the vandal (very unlikely). So, in effect, the landlord unilaterally faces the cost/risk of the tenant's speech choice. This would normally be considered an undesirable "moral hazard"...

...because the one who controls the risk is not the one who bears the consequences. (Note, a private employer can fire an employee for exercising free speech that reflects badly on the employer.) The landlord naturally will try to mitigate this, whether or not he agrees with the sign. The landlord may support it but fear the public reaction's impact to his wallet. It's a negotiation, with the claim of tenant liability as a bluff. The landlord may still have leverage in that he can deny the tenant favors/leniency in other areas, offer a worse lease renewal, etc., if the sign stays up.

I think this answer misses the point and concentrates too much on the "free speech" aspect. The landlord holds the deposit, and is unlikely to get the repair money from the actual vandal. If, when the lease is up and it's deposit return time, the landlord sees a broken window, can he not then take the cost of the repair out of the deposit? Is it enough for the tenant to say, "Well it wasn't me, it was a vandal" and the landlord has to pay the deposit in full? Does the tenant not have a responsibility of care while occupying the house?

@colmde They do, but fixing vandalism is not part of the responsibility of care of a tenant. Unless the tenant is actively inciting acts of vandalism against the property, I don't see how they could be held responsible for someone else's actions, regardless of whether those actions were spurred by a political sign, an argument the tenant had with somebody, or something completely random. The landlord can't hold the tenant responsible for vandalism because they "had it coming".

@nanoman I agree that it's not normally considered violence. But when it's used to chill the exercise of fundamental rights by targeted groups, it is violence. For example, a gang that breaks the store windows of minority-owned businesses to chase them out of "their" neighborhoods is, IMO, violent. This falls into that category because the threat of it is being used to intimidate the OP into not exercising their rights.

@colmde The landlord can only charge the tenant for damages that the landlord can hold the tenant legally responsible for and, as I explained, this is not one of those. This is true for all vandalism -- unless the landlord can hold the tenant legally responsible (such as if the tenant vandalized the property) the landlord has to cover damage to their own property.

@colmde If the tenant calls the police after the act of vandalism and get produce a police report at the conclusion of the lease, the landlord would find it very difficult to defend in court a decision to charge the tenant for the damage.

@A.fm. I agree. Whether something is violence or not has no bearing on this question. I'm not the one who brought it up as if it did, nanoman did. For the record, my dictionary defines "violence" as "behavior involving using force to damage, hurt, or kill something or someone". Webster: "the use of physical force so as to injure, abuse, damage, or destroy".

I do not know exactly how separation of power works in the US, but I believe that the courts are not part of the government.

@nanoman You said "You're assuming the landlord doesn't like the sign; but perhaps he's really just afraid of vandalism" Ah. You DO realize this is your assumption about the OP, right? S/he has said no such thing, made no assumptions about the intent or mindset of the landlord.

@CarstenS Courts are part of the government. Also, the Fifth Amendment requires them to act solely within the law, so if a court did something that would violate the First Amendment if Congress did it, they're either following the law (in which case the law violates the First Amendment) or not (in which case, the Court is violating the Fifth Amendment).

@GwenKillerby "You" meant not the OP (asker), but the author of the answer I was commenting on (David Schwartz). I was going on this: "exactly what your landlord is trying to do here could happen. People could threaten violence or harm as a way to chill other people's speech."

@DavidSchwartz In my defense, the word "violence" or "violent" was used 5 times in your answer, so it was hardly obvious that you felt it "has no bearing on this question". You've since softened it with phrases like "violence or harm".

@nanoman Make no mistake, I definitely consider threatening someone with property damage to stop them from saying something you don't want them to say to be violence. Using, or threatening, force to shut someone up is a form of violence. And the purpose of courts and liability in this context is to authorize the use of force.

@nanoman Sure, it's not the OP but David Schwartz. While I'm sure your interpretations of Davids assumptions about the landlords intent are very interesting, the bigger picture remains: Free speech suppression (a certainty) outweighs a mere risk of property damage (a chance occurrence). And not only because of the chance element. Besides, what the landlord is trying to do is ''victim-blaming''. Just like we don't hold rape victims accountable for wearing short skirts (if we did any one in bikini on a public beach could be raped at will), we don't hold the tenant here, accountable for others.

@GwenKillerby I don't think it makes sense to compare rape, which is a criminal offence, and on a vastly different scale, to what would be a civil case between the landlord and tenant. Note, regarding the crime in this case, the landlord is actually the victim of property damage conducted by the vandal. So, the landlord is actually the victim with respect to the crime. If we were prepared to compare vandalism with rape, which I'm not convinced most people would feel comfortable with, it would be the vandal saying that the landlord was responsible in some way to them commissioning their crime.

@GregoryCurrie if you're gonna cling bitterly to an EXAMPLE while not addressing all of my points, or even that specific point of victimblaming, directly, you should go back to where ever and try again.And as to who the actual victim is: I wonder, does the landlord LIVE in that house he rented out? Nope. Also, your description of the thought process of the vandal is laughable on it's face. You really think the vandal is going around thinking: Hmmm, that is a rented house, oooooh that LANDLORD makes me so, so, mad! In part, but still so so mad" But thanks for the laugh.

@GwenKillerby It's the landlords property. They are responsible for repairing the damages to their property. They take the financial hit. I didn't make any assessment regarding the vandals thought process.

@GregoryCurrie "I didn't make any assessment regarding the vandals thought process" Yes you did when you said BEFORE, that: "it'd be the vandal saying that the landlord was responsible in some way to them commissioning their crime" And thanks for your insinuation regarding rape. No-one is equating rape & vandalism, even though they're similar cos violence. But ever since Cheryl Araujo became case law, victim blaming has been a judicial case law reality, however wrongly you may think that's "just ethics" and not good clean fun, I'm sorry: judicial principle.Typical (white?)mansplaining