Reed v. Town of Gilbert

TGregg

TGregg

So here's an interesting case before SCOTUS. Basically, some town has a sign ordinance that says signs that say certain things have different rules about how big they can be and how long they can be up. While I agree that freedom of speech (generally) says you can't do that, I wonder about the legality of SCOTUS ruling this ordinance unconstitutional. I mean, the Constitution was written to empower the federal government. Then we amended the thing to more or less offer the same rules to state governments. But it doesn't seem to apply to town governments, not sure why SCOTUS even gets a say on it.

http://news.yahoo.com/church-takes-fight-arizona-towns-sign-law-high-081718303--politics.html
 
very interesting...
supreme court cases frequently feature different sets of rights clashing.

freedom of speech vs a local area wanting to keep itself free of message clutter (or how it wishes to appear).

to me it does appear the local area's ordinance seems a bit too arbitrary and or biased against religion.

i think I would be in favor of a narrow ruling.
but if a narrow ruling was coming... why would the justices take up the issue.
its not like the smaller signs rule was that great a burden.
 
i could re read the article but would it be for poltiking and Realtors?

I have always thought about running one of my websites for mayor during election season.

Ricter said:
Or it's biased for politicking.
More...
 
Should be an easy case. They placed burdens on one group due to content. Ironically, commercial speech is subject to greater regulation, but this town gave commercial speach greater protection than religious speech. Content-based restrictions generally face stricter scrutiny than neutral restrictions on things such as billboards or signs. The city could have banned any placement of signs on highway rights of way but when they allowed realtors but singled out churches, they got onto thin ice.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jem
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top