[Peace-discuss] Billboards and Free Speech

[Laurie at advancenet.net]

I do not have a horse in this horse race so I should not really comment; but
I will play devil’s advocate for the sake of clarifying some of the
confounding of concerns and issues that appear to be taking place.

 

>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.   

 

I think that you are missing an important point or two. The Constitution
protects free speech from censorship and interference by the government,
governmental agencies, and governmental officials not by private parties; it
also applies to protecting freedom of speech and expression in and on public
lands and properties; it does not address speech in or on private property.
The control and regulation of speech and expression in or on private
property falls under health and public safety  rights and laws and not under
the First Amendment; when the two conflict, the health and public safety
rights take precedence over First Amendment rights.

 

Adams owns the billboards and probably the property that it is located on
which you seek to put your message.  If you bought and owned a billboard and
the property that it was located on, you can put whatever message you want
on it and that message would and should be protected from governmental
censorship and interference just as it is the case for Adams vis-à-vis the
government.  In addition, Adams has a right to protect its vested interests
and take actions should it feel that they are threatened.  If they feel that
putting up your message can cause them economic damage in terms of future
business or the costs of future potential legal actions, they have a right
to refuse your business as long as it is not based on discrimination against
protected classes or violate other legitimate laws just as you do.  Adams is
not compelled by The Constitution to protect your First Amendment rights or
to help you exercise or facilitate the exercising of those rights.

 

 

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

 

Interesting; but how would you or AWARE react if the City Council used such
an ordinance to prevent the display of "IMPEACH BUSH/CHENEY" from being
placed on a billboard in Urbana saying it was visual pollution that a
majority of the citizens of Urbana view as an unsightly and unwanted
statement.  I am not sure that I trust the government and its officials to
make such a determination as to what is visual or sound pollution and what
is not since in said cases pollution is like obscenity – i.e., hard to
define or to even determine what a community standard for implementing a
definition would be - or even if they represent the community with respect
to the identification of a community standard in any given concrete instance
(do they take a public referendum each and every time before making a
decision?).  Then there is the issue of what about protection of minority
rights should the majority of Urbana citizens object to something that a
minority of Urbana citizens want or want something that offends a minority.


 

However, leaving aside from issues concerning control of visual pollution,
how does one define and determine when a government or governmental official
is controlling visual or audio pollution and when they are using visual and
audio pollution control as an excuse or way to regulate speech and
expression, enforce conformity and reduce individualism, or rationalize
policies to the majority of persons that harm weak and poor persons in some
minority in favor of the rich and powerful persons in another minority.

 

 

From: peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net
[mailto:peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of Jan & Durl
Kruse
Sent: Monday, September 24, 2007 6:20 PM
To: John W.
Cc: peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Billboards and Free Speech

 

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
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7zpXLKAyESM&mode=related&search=>
&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/20070924/9330ff63/attachment.html