[Peace-discuss] Billboards and Free Speech

[John W.]

At 06:20 PM 9/24/2007, Jan & Durl Kruse wrote:

>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.

That's right.


>This raises some interesting questions.  Is "advertising" protected free 
>speech and the exercise of free speech as implied in the constitution?

Yes, advertising is "commercial speech" protected by the First 
Amendment.  "Commercial speech" is accorded a slightly lower level of 
protection than "political speech", but I would be hard-pressed to explain 
to you just exactly what the difference is in terms of levels of protection.


>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.

Well, Adams is a person, right?  In our jurisprudence even a corporation is 
considered a person.  Every person in America is guaranteed by the First 
Amendment the right (with a few narrow exceptions like obscenity, child 
pornography, "fighting words", falsely shouting fire in a crowded theater, 
etc.) to say what s/he wants.  Implicit in that right is the right to NOT 
say, or refuse to say, what s/he does NOT want to say, for whatever 
reason.  Also NOT to listen to what someone else is saying.

So you as an individual or as AWARE have the right to say what you want, 
and Adams, very much like a newspaper, has the right to refuse to print 
what YOU want to say (just as YOU have the right to refuse to say or print 
or publicize what Adams might want to say).  The law assumes that you can 
say what you want to say some other way - shout it on a street corner, put 
a sign in your own yard, publish your own newspaper, etc.

The law really doesn't take into account financial considerations - the 
fact that the New York Times can print millions of copies, while you as an 
individual or small group can afford to print only maybe 5,000 copies to 
get your message out.  The law leaves it up to you to somehow raise enough 
money to compete in the marketplace of ideas with the New York Times.  It 
doesn't really care whether you're able to do that or not.  All it's 
interested in is your right to speak without undue regulation of the 
CONTENT of your speech.


>Something is afoul here!

No.  It's just the law.  :-)


>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.

That's an excellent example of a "time, place, or manner" restriction this 
is perfectly permissible under Constitutional jurisprudence.  That's not to 
say that the citizens of Urbana will have the final say.  No doubt there 
are planning commission hearings that you can attend and express your 
opinion at, and of course Urbanites can try to vote their mayor and city 
council reps out of office if they're not happy.  But even in Urbana 
there's occasionally an attempt to encourage business at the expense of 
aesthetics.  :-)


>I don't believe the city council is trying to regulate billboard content 
>but attempting to control visual pollution.

Very possibly.  But if that's the case, I don't know why they'd be 
reconsidering their ordinance.  Something in the lawsuit has them nervous, 
seems to me.  One would have to read the ordinance to see what they're 
attempting to regulate, and the lawsuit to see what Adams is objecting to.

John



>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=>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/20070924/13d442b9/attachment.htm