ACLU: Court rejects state's billboard limits
1:12 PM Wed, Jan 28, 2009 | Permalink
Email
 |
 |
Projo 7 to 7 News BlogTaking the news pulse of Rhode Island and Southeastern Massachusetts, by Providence Journal and projo.com staff, from 7 to 7, every business day |
|
Get the 7 to 7 on your mobile at www.projo.com. Twitter: projo | RSS | Email alerts
« Trial postponed in Newport pub crawl death |
Main
| Church service commemorates homeless, poor / Video »
The American Civil Liberties Union claimed victory today in a case challenging the state's right to limit advertising on buildings near state highways. to promoting activity taking place on the premises. The suit was filed on behalf of Anthony Joseph Vono and his business, Specialty Promotions, which was cited in 2005 by the state Department of Transportation for having a billboard advertising "off premises activity," a statement from the ACLU's Rhode Island chapter said. The state maintains a business can only advertise activities occurring in its building. The Providence building in which Vono's business operates includes a roof sign which is visible on Route 95 North near the Route195 split. In 2005, when the sign was advertising the non-profit agency Casey Family Services, Vono was notified by DOT that he had to take it down because it advertised "an activity not occurring on the property where it is located," the ACLU said . U.S. District Judge William Smith found that state policy unconstitutionally gave greater protection to commercial speech than to political speech, the ACLU said. ACLU attorney John Dineen said that the decision reaffirmed one of the most important principles of the First Amendment, that the government can't allow or prohibit speech based on its content. "We tend to quickly spot this problem when it happens in other countries but then overlook the same danger when it's right in front of us," Dineen said. 
CommentsLeave a commentPlease be civil. Vicious comments, personal attacks and profanity won't be published. Name and email are required; email address will not publish. |
Tags 
New comments
New photos
New posts
Projo blogs
Archives
These kinds of decisions just go to show you that just because you have a law degree or become a judge doesn't mean that you can properly interpret or uphold the law. The Highway Beautification Act which became law in 1970 clearly states that any on-premise sign's message can only contain what occurs on the property. It also states that the sign must be on the property for which it advertises. I don't know how much more clear that can be. I also is clear from long standing policy and guideance that any sign which advertises activities not conducted on-premise is considered outdoor advertising and must be permitted and controlled as any other off-premise advertising sign. What the state DOT did had nothing to do with the content of the advertising per se, except to say that it constituted off-premise advertising and was not allowed--by law--if the sign was to continue to be classified as an on-premise sign. The several states and the Federal Highway Administration are mandated by the U.S. Congress to uphold and enforce the provisions of the Act mentioned previously. Neither agency has the time or inclination to challenge First Amendment rights--they simply enforce the law at it is stated. The Rhode Island DOT and the FHWA should appeal this decision.
Report Abuse
These kinds of decisions just go to show you that just because you have a law degree or become a judge doesn't mean that you can properly interpret or uphold the law. The Highway Beautification Act which became law in 1970 clearly states that any on-premise sign's message can only contain what occurs on the property. It also states that the sign must be on the property for which it advertises. I don't know how much more clear that can be. It also is clear from long standing policy and guidance that any sign which advertises activities not conducted on-premise is considered outdoor advertising and must be permitted and controlled as any other off-premise advertising sign. What the state DOT did had nothing to do with the content of the advertising per se, except to say that it constituted off-premise advertising and was not allowed--by law--if the sign was to continue to be classified as an on-premise sign. The several states and the Federal Highway Administration are mandated by the U.S. Congress to uphold and enforce the provisions of the Act mentioned previously. Neither agency has the time or inclination to challenge First Amendment rights--they simply enforce the law at it is stated. The Rhode Island DOT and the FHWA should appeal this decision.
Report Abuse
Good for you ACLU - the law of this nation is the constutution and our bill of rights - not the laws of any legislative body that may wish to establish outside of our true rule of law and our fundimental rights.
If only more people would question the laws/rule/regulations set by state and local government...
Report Abuse