[Peace-discuss] Billboards and Free Speech
n.dahlheim at mchsi.com
n.dahlheim at mchsi.com
Tue Sep 25 08:53:48 CDT 2007
For Supreme Court case on billboards, see Metromedia, Inc vs. San Diego with the majority decision
offered by Justice Byron White.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=453&invol=490
Nick
---------------------- Original Message: ---------------------
From: "John W." <jbw292002 at gmail.com>
To: "Laurie at advancenet.net" <laurie at advancenet.net>, <peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net>
Subject: RE: [Peace-discuss] Billboards and Free Speech
Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2007 03:38:46 +0000
> At 08:27 PM 9/24/2007, Laurie at advancenet.net wrote:
>
> >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.
>
> Yes, it gets complicated in cases where the place in question has
> characteristics of both public and private property. There have been
> important Supreme Court cases trying to decide the issue of whether (a) an
> airport and (b) a shopping mall is public or private property for First
> Amendment purposes. I would argue that billboards also share
> characteristics of both public and private space, but I'm pretty sure the
> Supreme Court has ruled that they're private.
>
>
> >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.
>
> Correct...with the caveats listed in a previous e-mail. For example, in a
> residential area a "time, place, and manner" restriction would probably be
> placed on a gigantic billboard in someone's front yard. Neighbors would
> argue that it blocked visibility for drivers, was unsightly, lowered
> property values, etc. And a court would probably agree.
>
>
> >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.
>
> Correct, and very well put in the last sentence.
>
>
> > >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.
>
> Ah, but this is why the definition of "visual pollution" could not be based
> on the CONTENT of the speech. It would have to be framed in terms of the
> size or location of the billboard or some other content-neutral criterion.
>
>
> >However, leaving aside 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?
>
> That can be a tricky bit o' business. The court would have to scrutinize
> the law, or its application, to try to determine whether it was being used
> in such a way as to discriminate based on speech CONTENT.
>
> Very recently there was a situation in New York City, I think it was, where
> certain members of the anti-war crowd were arrested for pasting anti-war
> handbills on utility boxes on public streets. They claimed they were not
> in violation of any law - using biodegradable paste, intending to take the
> handbills down following the event, etc. - and were therefore being
> arrested on the basis of the content of their speech. I don't know all the
> details, and don't know how the case is going to turn out, but it's one of
> those cases where the government SEEMS to be invoking rather arbitrary
> "time, place, and manner" restrictions in an effort to silence anti-war
> speech.
>
> The same thing happens when the government in Washington D.C. creates
> supposed "free speech zones" that are unduly restrictive and miles from the
> White House and Capitol. The rules are portrayed as "time, place, and
> manner" restrictions for the good of the community in its entirety, but to
> me they seem unduly restrictive, their real purpose being to discourage
> dissent.
>
> The government has gotten VERY good since the 1960s at controlling
> dissent. It has served the government's purpose that the Supreme Court has
> been extraordinarily conservative since the late William Rehnquist became
> Chief Justice, such that it tends to uphold these draconian or arbitrary
> "time, place, and manner" restrictions as being reasonable.
>
>
>
> >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&mode=related&search=>http://www.you
> tube.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.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Peace-discuss mailing list
> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss
More information about the Peace-discuss
mailing list