Posted on 08/17/2015 10:27:05 AM PDT by NRx
Gilbert, Arizona (Town), has a comprehensive code (Sign Code or Code) that prohibits the display of outdoor signs without a permit, but exempts 23 categories of signs, including three relevant here. “Ideolog- ical Signs,” defined as signs “communicating a message or ideas” that do not fit in any other Sign Code category, may be up to 20 square feet and have no placement or time restrictions.To wit: if you can post an arbitrary message indefinitely, no justification exists to limit arbitrary subcategories of messages. The manner of signage may be limited (20 sq ft max is the local regulation), but short of objective adjudicated actionable content it's hands-off under strict scrutiny.
Here’s the meat:
Held: The Sign Code’s provisions are content-based regulations of speech that do not survive strict scrutiny.
(a) Because content-based laws target speech based on its communicative content, they are presumptively unconstitutional and may be justified only if the government proves that they are narrowly tailored to serve compelling state interests.
(b) The Sign Code is content based on its face.
(c) None of the Ninth Circuit’s theories for its contrary holding is persuasive.
Free speech means free speech and not just speech fitting ones agenda.
As long as the 9th is still being overturned regularly, there is still hope for the country. Time to pray that Ginsberg stays on the SC long enough for Pres Cruz to appoint the successor.
Anything that bastard idiot Breyer doesn’t like must be good.
My HOA may get an interesting letter next year come Easter.
Last year I got a “violation” letter regarding a decoration being up too long (1’ white cross on side of road) despite being 4 days into the 14 day decoration allowance period.
The first rule of thumb is that laws and decisions that enhance constitutional rights and liberties strongly favor better outcomes over possible problems.
The Second Amendment is a profound example of this. All the woe and dread opponents of gun liberty forecast just didn’t happen. Instead there is a bounty of positive ramifications.
The speech element of the First Amendment these days is buried under a deep pile of restrictions, limitations, impositions, etc., on every aspect of that freedom. So will lifting much of this burden harm society?
The assumption has to be no, it will not. Or at least those parts of society that enjoy the benefits of unhindered speech. Those that profit from control and domination over the speech of others might feel oppressed, but who cares what they think?
Interesting that the judgement was unanimous, in conclusion if not in reasoning.
The article's hysteria misses the point. The ruling vacates regulations prohibiting speech, but does not absolve the speaker of consequences thereof.
The NYT, and others of similar ilk, is all for THEIR free speech, but no one else.
I bet they have armed guards, too.
I look forward to seeing a Second Amendment decision with the same consistency.
Perhaps the town which lost the decision should institute a "speech permit" law. Or a content-neutral waiting period before allowing signs. Or a background check on the person wishing to post a sign.
Actually your HOA may have more power than the Municipal government.
Indeed. I have to live near the HOA board members. I might even be one at times.
[gasp] I feel faint...
HOA's are not government, but I loathe them. I received a notice this winter from my HOA stating that I had to remove my Christmas lights. Nothing obnoxious about the lights - plain white, non-blinking and limited in number. It just happens I am getting old, have bad knees and I don't do well in snow and ice. Everytime I planned to take them down the weather was a mess. So I just left the lights in place and on their timer.
I received a letter from the HOA at the beginning of March, three days after I took the lights down. I had been out of compliance for six weeks. I guess the HOA's efficiency isn't the greatest. It only took me 15 minutes to write a suitable response and another five minutes to edit non-Christian-like language in my letter to the HOA. I doubt if it did any good, but it allowed me to vent.
If the covenants setting up the HOA allow 14 days, then you should have been able to insist that they treat you even-handedly with respect to the time.
As I recall, the HOA I was involved in disallowed any "signs" except those offering a unit for sale.
One unit owner was compelled to remove pro-socialist signage in his windows. His only recourse was to make sure that other unit owners were not permitted to violate the same restriction.
The CC&Rs typically include language which permits the Board to assess fines for violations and that is how compliance is achieved on behalf of all the other unit owners. Things can get pretty rough on a unit owner that violates the CC&Rs.
The difficulty is there is usually enough regulation in place to further nail you for _something_ if you get uppity. The objection letter I got noted two other minor violations - which had been present for quite some time, but nonetheless in violation. I’m sure they were cited ONLY to add “shut up and comply” weight to the other citation, even if it were not exactly “legal” on their part (to wit: “ok, you’re right and can leave that decoration up for another week - in the meantime, we’re filing a lien on your home for the other two just because we’re mad you challenged our authority”).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.