Agenda - Planning Commission - 10/05/1999

Home

Page 2. L September t0, t999 Z.B. First Amendment -- City prohibits political signs except for short period before elections OHIO (8/13/99) -- Dworken & Bernstein Co., L.P.A. was a law firm in Painesville. The city building inspector notified the firm that a political sign on its property violated a city ordinance that prohibited all political signs except for a 17-day period before an election. Two days later, when the building inspector asked why the sign was still there, the firm said it didn't want the sign removed. The building inspector filed a criminal complaint against the law fn-rn, claim- ing it violated the zoning ordinance. The building inspector noted a separate offense occurred every day the sign remained on the property. The firm asked the court to dismiss the complaint, arguing the zoning ordinance violated its First Amendment right to free speech. It argued the ordinance was an improper content-based regulation that sought to regulate free speech, pointing out the ordinance didn't prohibit other temporary signs such' as "For Sale" or real estate signs. The city claimed the ordinance was a legitimate "content neutral" regula- tion because it treated equally ail political speech, regardless of the message conveyed. It argued political signs sprang up like weeds during an election and were a traffic hazard because they were designed to divert drivers' atten- tion from the road. According to the city, the signs shouldn't be considered "political speech" because, they didn't contain policy, statements or information about ballot issues. It said the signs were used solely to create name recognition and candidates could use leaflets to address the issues. The court refused to dismiss the charge, and the firm changed its plea to no contest. The court found the firm guilty and fined it $250 plus court costs. The law firm appealed. DECISION: Reversed, The ordinance was unconstitutional. The city could place 'reasonable' "time, place, or manner" restrictions on protected speech, but the city's regulation wasn't content neutral. The First Amendment protected not only particular viewpoints, but also public discus- sion of an entire topic. Except during a limited window of time, the city banned the use of all political signs, which were an important and sometimes indis- pensable means of communication. To justify 'suppressing protected speech, the city needed "reasonable grounds to fear that serious evil will result." The city's only justifications were aesthetics and traffic safety, which weren't enough -- it made no at- tempt to show the "disease sought to be cured." Moreover, even if aesthetic and traffic issues were important enough to warrant limiting political speech, the city didn't show the ban was the least restrictive way to combat the problems. Citation: City of Painesville Building Department v. Dworken & Bernstein Co., L.P.4., Court of Appeals of Ohio, 1Jth Appellate Dist., Lake County, No. 98-L-223 (1999).