Posted by eric-fl on November 12, 2004 at 21:51:29:
Wow Brian, that certainly was a detailed response in light of your ‘flippant’ original! Are you a lawyer or something? Where did you look up those cases?
One thing you said struck right at me: “I think the more interesting issue is the de facto regulation that allows political signs but disallows commercial signs. I?m not aware of any case law that analyzes this situation.”
There are ordinances, in my area, that state this exact thing. I’ve always maintained that, laws which apply to everyone except the lawmakers themselves, are inherently unconsitutional, and I would presume that if any of those ordinances were tested in court, they would probably eventually lose if they got taken up high enough. I’d love to find out how you found those cases, just to see if there IS any case law on that. If not, I bet there will be soon…
Last nights Fox 5 News, reported the city of Atlanta has had enough with all types of bandit signs on utility poles and street/road right-of-ways.
They have instructed the signs be confiscated and the police are planning to start calling the numbers listed in an attempt to contact the sign owners.
Not sure if that will result in only a first warning or not, but it was stated there could be fines of $150 per sign and possible jail time.
If you use signs in the Metro Atlanta area, you might need to check out this “new” development.
Re: Attention Bandit Sign users around Atlanta - Posted by rehabber
Posted by rehabber on November 11, 2004 at 07:33:32:
I wonder if the Atlanta area govt. used the same zeal to
chase down people who posted political signs on
utility poles, in highway medians, etc. before
the election (of which, I’m sure many are still up, and
will still be up months after the election is over).
I’ll bet the mayor, or whichever politician that is
going after the bandit signs has political signs
of their own up all over town in spots they shouldn’t
be (utility poles, street medians, etc)
Political signs on posts are protected political speech. Bandit signs are “commercial speech” well within the city’s ability to regulate. There’s a big difference between you and the mayor!
Re: Attention Bandit Sign users around Atlanta - Posted by rehabber
Posted by rehabber on November 12, 2004 at 09:22:52:
not exactly. NO signs are allowed to be on
the right of way/medians of roads, political or
REI. None. Same for utility poles - utility company
owns the pole, they don’t want to have to fight
to step over a sign when climbling the pole with
their cleats on. So, NO signs are allowed on
utility poles either. Your ‘free speech’ arguement
just doesn’t hold water. You own your house -
would it be LEGAL for a politician to staple his
signs to your house (without your permission), yet
illegal for an REI person?? Same for roads - state/
municipality owns roads - NO signs allowed on
right of ways. Utility company owns poles - NO
signs allowed.
I wasn’t defending the REI bandit signs, I was
pointing out the hypocrisy of selective enforcement
of bandit signs by govt. officials.
My earlier response was probably more flippant than it should have been. After seeing your message, I did a little quick research.
First, I agree wholeheartedly about private property. Private owners (including utilties with easements) definitely have the ability to control what’s on their property. Indeed, the Supreme Court has held that ordinances which ban all signs are unconstitutional, because the traffic safety and aesthetic justifications aren’t sufficient to outweigh the free speech concerns. City of LaDue v. Gilleo, 512 U.S. 43 (1994).
The issue is more complex on the public right-of-way. Based on my reading of the commentary, the government has the right to ban all speech (signs) on the right-of-way because that regulation is content neutral. Metromedia v. San Diego, 453 U.S. 490 (1981) (prohibition on billboards found content-neutral and constitutional). (And that is what I assume Atlanta’s ordinance says.) It?s clear that a municipality can?t favor political speech over commercial speech (ie, allowing only ?for sale? signs but banning political signs). I think the more interesting issue is the de facto regulation that allows political signs but disallows commercial signs. I?m not aware of any case law that analyzes this situation.
On a pragmatic note (which is really what my flippant comment was meant to address), city administrators probably know that they get in trouble when they mess with political speech. Commercial speech is less favored (under the First Amendment) than ?pure? political speech. Regulation of commercial speech is scrutinized far less than regulation of political speech.
(This is what I get for getting curious about the law in an area that is relatively new to me!)
Re: Attention Bandit Sign users around Atlanta - Posted by rehabber
Posted by rehabber on November 13, 2004 at 10:41:32:
Thanks for clarification. Didn’t mean to be so direct
in my original reply.
I’ve understood that bandit type signs were ‘officially’
banned from utility poles and hiway medians/areas for
safety reasons - nothing to do with freedom of speech.
Nails/staples/etc that are used to put up bandit signs
are dangerous for the lineman that have to climb these
poles and their life relies on their metal cleats
sticking to the pole and not slipping over a bunch of
illegally placed nails/staples.
Same for roads. Every ‘official’ permitted sign along
roads ways is DOT approved (at least they should be).
They are tested/approved to shear off if hit by a
car with enough force -
the sign part designed to fall a certain wall so it
wont impale the driver. Now if an REI guy or
politcal buy puts up a flimsy palstic bandit sign, on
a flimsy metal pole in a highway median, and a car
hits it, nobody is going to get hurt. But I think
the ‘no signs’ laws are designed to stop the idiots.
I’ve seen bandit signs put up on medians and the stake
used was a fricking 2x4 - how they drove the thing into
the ground is beyond me. One can see if that sign was
hit, it may snap weird and go up under the
car and puncture a fuel line - it would do the same
damage regardless of whether the ink on the sign
said “I buy house” or “Vote for Joe”.
Plus, the flimsy REI plastic signs eventually blow
away, get knocked down by a snowdrift, etc.
And then they become trash, worse yet, non-decomposible
plastic trash - and (again) it doesn’t matter what
the message on the sign says, it’s still trash at
that point.