[Peace-discuss] Billboards and Free Speech

[Jan & Durl Kruse]

John,
This is very interesting.  Because of "free speech rights" an  
advertising company like Adams can print anything it wants on its  
billboards in Urbana as long as it is not obscene (and of course they  
get handsomely paid for it) , while at the same time denying AWARE's  
"free speech rights" by refusing to accept our wording "IMPEACH BUSH/ 
CHENEY" for a billboard in 2006 promoting the ballot advisory  
referendum.

This raises some interesting questions.  Is "advertising" protected  
free speech and the exercise of free speech as implied in the  
constitution?  Where does an "individual's free speech right " fit  
into this picture when the company itself (Adams) refuses to print  
the wording Impeach Bush/Cheney on a billboard because it is too  
politically charged and may have a negative business backlash.

Something is afoul here!

I hope the Urbana City Council sticks to its position of regulating  
billboards through "time, place and manner" by not permitting Adams  
to place billboards in locations that are unsightly or unwanted by  
the citizens of Urbana.  I don't believe the city council is trying  
to regulate billboard content but attempting to control  visual  
pollution.




On Sep 24, 2007, at 5:32 PM, John W. wrote:

> At 05:10 PM 9/24/2007, Jan & Durl Kruse wrote:
>
>>> Billboards and Free Speech:
>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7zpXLKAyESM&mode=related&search=
>>>
>>> Urbana reconsidering last year's ordinance on billboards
>>> By Mike Monson
>>>
>>> Monday September 24, 2007
>>>
>>> URBANA – A lawsuit filed against the city of Urbana by Adams  
>>> Outdoor Advertising is prompting city officials to propose  
>>> revising an ordinance that is barely a year old.
>>>
>>> Adams owns all 32 billboard structures, with 64 billboard faces,  
>>> in the city of Urbana. The company filed suit in Champaign County  
>>> Circuit Court this past November, asking for relief from the  
>>> city's new billboard ordinance, which was approved by the city  
>>> council in June 2006.
>>>
>>> In the suit, Adams objected to the fact that to get a new  
>>> billboard requires the company to get a special use permit  
>>> approved by the city council and reviewed by the plan commission.  
>>> Adams contended that requiring a special use permit was an  
>>> abridgment on its First Amendment rights to free speech and  
>>> failed to include basic due process protections.
>
>
> If the permission granted or denied is based in any way on the  
> CONTENT of the advertising, other than probably obscenity, Adams is  
> absolutely right.  However, the city can impose what are called  
> "time, place, and manner" restrictions on the billboards.
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/private/peace-discuss/attachments/20070924/6606d2b0/attachment.html