The minefield of limiting Political Speech
The Rancho Cucamonga city council has been struggling with the issue of political signs posted during the campaign seasons. Council members Sam Spagnolo and Rex Gutierrez have worked together on the issue without a solution.
The problem seems to be too many signs plastered on a property both private and public. In the last election there were complaints, expressed by opposing candidates and their supporters, of violations of an agreement entered into by city council candidates. The posting of sign before the agreed date, and the number of signs were two of the offenses that the council is attempting to control by ordinance.
Our city attorney has detailed the problem of treatment of political speech in the form of campaign signs. Political speech in the form of signage cannot be treated any differently that signage of any other sort. There is always this nasty problem with the constitution and free speech.
Does the city need another ordinance to control political signs?
Is there an outcry from the communality or just a hangover from the last bitter election cycle? The issue of incumbent elected officials placing limits on the speech of challengers and their supporters is a sticky problem. There may well be skepticism on the part of the sitting council members as to the effectiveness of signs in a campaign. Every one of the candidates in the past has used posted signs. Violations of the existing code have been deemed ineffective as either unenforceable or of too little impact on the violators.
Unintended consequences are always a problem downstream particularly when fiddling with free speech. One problem may be that size of political sign may increases once the number per parcel is limited. Billboard use may increase if they are exempt from the new ordnance. Will mobile signs (bumper stickers) on private autos be banned?
This effort seems to be a reaction to a very contentions election season now past. Let this issue go. Raise the visibility of the voluntary restrictions that candidates agree to follow, maybe a sign adjacent to any offending site, and let the voters pass judgment on the offenders.
Are campaign contribution limits next on the agenda?
Posted: March 27th, 2008 under City Council, City RC, Election 2008.
Comments: 1
Comments
Comment from admin
Time: March 31, 2008, 3:09 pm
In 1994, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a Missouri city law prohibiting signs at private residences. Margaret Gilleo ran afoul of the law when she placed a 24-by-36-inch sign in her front lawn with the words, “Say No to War in the Persian Gulf, Call Congress Now†and an 8 ½-by-11-inch sign in the second-story window of her home that read, “For Peace in the Gulf.â€
A unanimous U.S. Supreme Court rejected the ordinance in City of Ladue v. Gilleo, writing that residential yard signs were “a venerable means of communication that is both unique and important.†The Court explained:
In Arlington County Republican Committee v. Arlington County (1993), a three-judge panel of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals invalidated a county law that imposed a two-sign limit on temporary signs for each residence. The court noted that “the two-sign limit infringes on this speech by preventing homeowners from expressing support for more than two candidates when there are numerous contested elections.â€
The whole story at For the whole story click here
Write a comment