Agenda - Planning Commission - 12/06/2012

Home

Zoning Bulletin November 25, 2012 1 Volume 6 1 Issue 22 Citation: Charles v. City of Los Angeles, 2012 WL 4857194 (9th Cir. 2012) The Ninth Circuit has jurisdiction over Alaska, Arizona, California, Guam, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Northern Mariana Islands, Oregon, and Washington. NINTH CIRCUIT (CALIFORNIA) (10/15/12)—This case addressed the issue of whether advertisements for expressive works constituted noncom- mercial speech within the meaning of a city's ordinance and were thus protected speech under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The Background/Facts: The City of Los Angeles, California (the "City") has a sign ordinance (the "Sign Ordinance") that requires a building permit for all temporary signs other than those containing a "political, ideo- logical or other noncommercial message." In the City, Fort Self Storage had agreed to lease exterior wall space to Wayne Charles for the display of temporary signs bearing "content related to motion pictures, theatrical productions, television and radio program- ming, music, books, newspapers, paintings, and other works of art." As their first image, Wayne Charles and Fort Self Storage (hereinafter, collec- tively, "C & F") proposed to display an image composed of the logo for the television show "E! News," and photographs of the show's hosts, Ryan Seacrest and Giuliana Rancic. Before erecting the sign, C & F sought confirmation from the City's Building and Safety Department that the proposed sign was indeed exempt from the permitting requirements. The City found the sign "appear[ed] to be strictly commercial in nature" and was thus subject to the Sign Ordinance's permitting requirements. On September 29, 2010, C & F sued the City in federal district court. They asked the court to declare that the proposed "E! News" sign and all other signs they intended to display with "content related to motion pictures, theatrical productions, television and radio programming, music, books, newspapers, paintings, and other works of art" were exempt from the Sign Ordinance's permitting requirements under the clause exempting signs "contain[ing] a. . . noncommercial message" from the permitting requirements. Among other things, C & F argued that the City's decision to classify their proposed signs as commercial speech violated the First Amendment as applied to C & F's speech. C & F contended that the proposed "E! News" billboard should be considered an adjunct of or incidental to the "E! News" television program, which enjoys the same First Amendment protection for noncommercial expression as the advertised news program itself. The district court dismissed C & F's claims concerning unspecified future signs bearing "content related to... works of art." As to the "E! News" sign, the court rejected C & F's argument. It found that the "E! News" billboard qualified as commercial speech and did not contain "even arguably noncom- mercial content." The district court entered judgment in favor of the City. C & F appealed. DECISION: Judgment of district court affirmed. © 2012 Thomson Reuters 3