working

POPULAR TAGS

 Outside the Beltway 

L.A. Billboard Ban Upheld

This billboard sign was mocking the $300 Divorce signs that have littered Toronto the past year or two

This billboard sign was mocking the $300 Divorce signs that have littered Toronto the past year or two

The 9th Circuit has upheld Los Angeles bans on billboards, saying no 1st Amendment issues were at stake.

Outdoor advertising company Metro Lights LLC had argued that the city could not prohibit new “off-site” signs — images that advertise products not sold on the immediate property — while at the same time selling advertising space on city-owned bus benches and kiosks. Metro Lights had accused the city of auctioning off “1st Amendment rights to the highest bidder.”

“This is strong, if rather sloganeering, language, but after reviewing the case law on which Metro Lights relies, we believe it to be little more than a canard,” the court wrote.

Howard Bashman has a good write-up on the case.

While my instincts are generally libertarian and to be dubious of anything coming out of the 9th Circuit, this strikes me as a no-brainer.  Decades of case law make clear that localities can impose time, place, and manner restrictions on speech in order to achieve public policy goals incidental to said speech.  Clearly, the city’s purpose here was a reasonable limitation in order to improve the aesthetic quality of the community rather than a backdoor attempt to regulate speech.

Metro Lights LLC is no doubt harmed by the law, since they’re in the outdoor advertising business.  But the harm isn’t to their free speech rights but rather to their commercial interests.  And they’re no more harmed than, say, newspapers and magazines denied the right to publish advertisements from tobacco and liquor companies.

That the city is selling outdoor advertising while prohibiting others from doing likewise is perhaps unfair but it’s hardly unusual.  For example, many states restrict the sale of alcoholic beverages to state-run ABC stores and many also have state-run lotteries while prohibiting private ones.  In any case, it’s not a free speech issue.

Photo by Flickr user Word Freak under Creative Commons license.

About the Author: James Joyner is the publisher of Outside the Beltway and the managing editor of the Atlantic Council. He's a former Army officer, Desert Storm vet, and college professor with a PhD in political science from The University of Alabama. He lives just outside the Beltway in Alexandria, Virginia with his wife and infant daughter.

Follow James on FriendFeed | Twitter | Digg
 
 
Related Stories:
 
Recent Stories:
| Subscribe to RSS Feed | Permalink | Send TrackBack

 
Comments
 

not to mention that the 1st amendment is largely about political speech. Commercial advertisement has no protection whatsoever under the 1st.

Posted by Rick DeMent | January 7, 2009 | 09:47 am | Permalink
 

I don't recall reading the word "non-commercial" in the First Amendment.

Posted by PD Shaw | January 7, 2009 | 10:55 am | Permalink
 

$300 for a lobotomy! Expensive!

I'd rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy!

Posted by Triumph | January 7, 2009 | 11:12 am | Permalink
 

I thought the 1st amendment was about protecting nekkid dancers? A crucifix in urine? Illinois Nazis?

Posted by Steve Plunk | January 7, 2009 | 07:54 pm | Permalink
 

RSS feed for these comments.

 
Post a Comment

(required)

(required)


Please use the "LINK" button atop the comment box or otherwise insert HTML tags around links to other pages rather than just pasting in a URL. Doing the latter reformats the page if the URL is long, since it will not break.

 
Search OTB
Lijit Logo
OTB RSS Subscribers via FeedBurner

For Advertising Info, write
otb@blogads.com

FOLLOW US

ADVERTISERS

OTB MEDIA

MANzine logo

OTB Gone Hollywood

OTB Sports

Allie is Wired

ATLANTIC COUNCIL

New Atlanticist Atlantic Council Blog



Visitors Since Feb. 4, 2003

All original content copyright 2003-2009 by OTB Media. All rights reserved.