[Peace-discuss] Billboards and Free Speech

[John W.]

At 08:53 AM 9/25/2007, n.dahlheim at mchsi.com wrote:

>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


Yes, indeed.  Now try to figure out what it MEANS.  :-D  This is one of 
those really complex split decisions.  But it does touch on many of the 
themes that we've been talking about.



>----------------------  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=
> > >
> > >
> > >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.