Roof-top signs, “floppy-man” signs, and temporary banners were just some of the signs discussed at Tuesday’s Sign Review Committee meeting. But one thing the committee can do little about is political signs.
A new Illinois law set to take effect January 1, 2011, limits the city’s home rule authority to limit how long political signs can be displayed. HB3785 “[p]rovides that a municipality may place reasonable restrictions on the size of outdoor political campaign signs on residential property,” but also “[p]rovides that no municipality may prohibit the display of outdoor political campaign signs on residential property during any period of time.” The bill was passed unanimously by the Illinois House and Senate and signed by the Governor on June 3. The city currently requires that political campaign signs “be removed within seven days after an election.” That will have to be changed. Apparently, campaign signs can be left up year round starting next year. Won’t that make the city look fantastic?
Most of the discussion on other temporary signs revolved around how better to enforce the current ordinance during a time when the city is cutting staff. Ideas included lowering or eliminating the fee (currently $75) to apply for a temporary sign license (to improve compliance), utilizing city workers who are already driving around the city (such as police or public works employees) to call in violations to the sign ordinance when they see them, and partnering with printers and sign companies to educate those purchasing signs about the city’s rules.
The committee also recommended permitting inflatable signs so they can be approved administratively through the licensing process instead of through the Zoning Commission via the special use process. However, if permitted in this way, the change ordinance would add size limitations and prohibit “floppy man” types of signs (here’s an example).
floppy man makes me laugh
Aw, I’d be disappointed if they get rid of those! In my family we call them “flappy guys”.
I think the official name is “air dancer” but I like flappy guys.
… because nothing says “freedom of speech” like year old campaign posters.
Ummm … Actually a campaign poster is pretty much spot on exactly what the Founders were thinking when they included it in the free speech in the Bill of Rights.
“Actually a campaign poster is pretty much spot on exactly what the Founders were thinking when they included it in the free speech in the Bill of Rights.”
Come on Billy Dennis, they were talking about right of the people to speak out against the crown (or sitting government), not promotional posters, or advertising signs.
Charie: Do you have a reading comprehension problem? We aren’t talking about “promotional posters, or advertising signs'” (which, by the way, do enjoy 1t amendment protections) but POLITICAL POSTERS.
They’re blocking out the scenery, breaking my mind.
Please help me understnd the complicated differences, Billy Dennis;
“Vote for Joe”, or “Build the Block”… are they promotional or political?
How about “Eat at Joe’s” or “No Irish need apply”? Promotional or political?
“which, by the way, do enjoy 1t amendment protections”
I love how you phrased that. Don’t deserve them, aren’t covered by the first amendment, but they take advantage of the same protections given to someone else… sort of like mice living in your basement… the house wasn’t built for them, but they seem to sneak in anyway.
Does this new law mean that those elected officials whose
terms are only 2 years can keep their signs out all the time..since they continually run for re-election?
Charlie: Well, you are entitled to your own opinion.But you are not entitled to your own facts. I was refering to the fact that various Surpreme Court decisions over the years has established the commercial speech is entitled to protection under the 1st Amendment.
I refer you to this site:
http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/speech/advertising/overview.aspx
There is the first, paragraph, for those uninclided to click on a link:
“Commercial speech” as a constitutional doctrine — initially (and even today) an exception from the First Amendment’s normal rules — was casually suggested by a U.S. Supreme Court opinion in 1942. Then, in 1976, it was altered substantially when the Court recognized that such a talismanic exemption from the Constitution’s mandates was unsustainable. Later, it was transformed by repeated Court cases that resulted in a solid First Amendment rule that commercial speech that is neither false nor misleading is fully protected speech. By 2001, the doctrine approached maturity when the Court recognized that even tobacco advertising was entitled to significant First Amendment protection.”
But as I said earlier, this is not a case of commercial speech. It’s political. And it’s reasonable for the legislature to wanttoprotect political speech by banning a certain type of local regulation of it.
“that is neither false nor misleading’
“even tobacco advertising was entitled to significant First Amendment protection.”
And there you have it… “false” and “misleading” apparently have no meaning to our Supreme Court justices. If corporations do it, it is protected, if individuals do it, it is perjury, fraud, slander or libel.
Billy, don’t get into an argument about what is legal and what is ethical, moral or right. Apparently your adherence to Conventional Morality (as identified by Lawrence Kohlberg)interferes with your ability to be reasonable. I don’t make decisions based on the law. I base my decisions on what is right, ethical or moral.
“this is not a case of commercial speech. It’s political.”
The business of government is business… right? Politics is commerce.
IN YOUR OPINION: What is the distinction between political and commercial speech?
Charlie: Like many people, you are enamored with your own opinion, and dismissive of facts when contrary to the way you want the world to be. The difference between “commercial” and “political” is NOT a matter of opinion, whether it is your opinion or mine. I would define commercial speech as speech that was created to promote business interests. Political speech could be designed as encourage a vote for a candidate, to encourage or discourage passage of legislation or some other action by the government.
At this point, I am now convinced you are simply arguing because you want attention, and I am not likely to respond to further comments unless you have something rational to say.
well said Billy Dennis.
“The difference between “commercial” and “political” is NOT a matter of opinion, whether it is your opinion or mine. I would define…”
THAT is a perfect example of a MATTER OF OPINION!
Here is mine…
Billy, just because I actually think about the things I write before I write them doesn’t make you stupid. What makes you stupid is your statements like this one that you apparently did think about.
There is no difference between speech meant to persuade someone to buy a product and speech meant to persuade someone to vote for a candidate, or support a cause. In all cases someone gains and someone loses… money changes hands, opinions are expressed, facts are manipulated, there is an attempt to move someone to action.
SCOTUS
Under the first prong of the test as originally formulated, certain … speech is not entitled to protection; the informational function of … is the First Amendment concern and if it does not accurately inform the public about lawful activity, it can be suppressed.18
Second, if the speech is protected, the interest of the government in regulating and limiting it must be assessed. The State must assert a substantial interest to be achieved by restrictions on … speech.19
Third, the restriction cannot be sustained if it provides only ineffective or remote support for the asserted purpose.20
Instead, the regulation must “directly advance” the governmental interest. The Court resolves this issue with reference to aggregate effects, and does not limit its consideration to effects on the challenging litigant.31
Fourth, if the governmental interest could be served as well by a more limited restriction on …speech, the excessive restriction cannot survive.21 The Court has rejected the idea that a “least restrictive means” test is required. Instead, what is now required is a “reasonable fit” between means and ends, with the means “narrowly tailored to achieve the desired objective.”22
That is from our esteemed court. If it serves the government’s interest it is protected speech, or not…
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-161.html
“The Court has not been able to define “commercial speech” unambiguously.”
“Over the years the Court has moved from one obscure definition of “commercial speech” to another, never adhering to a single definition for long. Before Virginia State Board of Pharmacy v. Virginia Citizens Council, Inc., the Court found speech in the form of “purely commercial advertising” not entitled to First Amendment protection.(9) At times, it seemingly focused on the intentions of the speaker. Believing such intentions to concern the promotion of a sale, the Court held the speech in issue unworthy of First Amendment protection.(10) At other times, the Court viewed the presence or absence of a profit motive as irrelevant, explaining that it would hold speech that did “no more than propose a commercial transaction” to be undeserving of protection.(11) ”
“The First Amendment is first and foremost a denial of government power. It is not a catalogue of favored and disfavored forms of speech. It is by no means a vehicle for rendering a prejudice against profit-motivated speech the supreme law of the land. It leaves to each of us the choice of what and how to communicate and whether to communicate at all. There exists no lawful “preferred” mix of ideas, no required speech or disallowed speech. No free speech and press model is mandated by the First Amendment. Rather, each model is descriptive of that government-free environment mandated by the First Amendment.(47) ”
“Are There “Commonsense Differences” between Commercial and Noncommercial Speech?
On a number of occasions the Court has held that there are certain “commonsense differences” between commercial and noncommercial speech that justify a subordinate position for the former.(50) The Court has never explained precisely what the “commonsense differences” are; instead it has assumed that those differences are obvious. Precedent reveals that the differences are obvious neither to the Court, nor to the federal courts, nor to the public. ”
In short, the Founders did not create a legal distinction between commercial and political speech.(28)
Billy and 150 Observer… still waiting for YOUR apology.