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.
Anything that bastard idiot Breyer doesn’t like must be good.
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.
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.
Verrrrrrry interesting! It would seem to mean that any state or local body that imposes restrictions on content will be declared unconstitutional.
Practical ramifications: renting a school auditorium for a religious service, renting a town center for a gun show. Having a “draw mohammed” contest at a city park.
Once again, “selective incorporation” rears its ugly head at the expense of the 10th Amendment.
The main reason the NYT is so afraid of strict scrutiny is a) it limits what the government can do to you, and b) strict scrutiny as applied to the 2nd Amendment would overturn 99.9...% of the gun laws in America.
bump
This is so awesome. Thank you for posting it. I read two sites a day— Drudge and right here. Can you imagine the impact of Reed on political correctness on a state sponsored college campus. It’s over baby— Fly that Rebel flag !! Put a sign up that Water buffalo not allowed!! GEt it on 9 to 0 baby. The government can’t regulate content any more!! Strict Scrutiny !! This is so deadly to political Correctness on college campuses.
It means that the U.S.A. is heading in the opposite direction of Canada on the matter of free speech.
The author criticizes its impact on "consumer protection" (read: government control on speech). Looks like a very good ruling.