Hollywood Sign Expected to Read 'Save the Peak' on Thursday
Hugo's Introduces Vegan Mac & Cheese
![_Bye, Bye Hollywood Sign... at Least Temporarily [Updated]](http://laist.com/assets_c/2009/12/view_behind_hwdsign-thumb-110x110-464762.jpg)
Bye, Bye Hollywood Sign... at Least Temporarily [Updated]
Palin Calls Global Warming a 'Bunch of Snake Oil Science'
One Way to Take Care of Business
Nearly two months into a ban on new digital billboards and supergraphics, a judge sided with the city of Los Angeles after one advertising company challenged the law. Liberty Media said exceptions had been granted in the past and that City Council had violated state law dictating open meetings. U.S. District Judge Audrey B. Collins said "none of theese claims have merit" in her tentative decision.
However, this is not the end of lawsuits over advertising in Los Angeles. "Her tentative decision doesn’t mean a permanent moratorium on new signs in the city of L.A.," notes KPCC 89.3 FM. "Despite its ban, the city faces at least 20 other legal challenges from advertising companies that argue that the restrictions unconstitutionally limit their right to free speech."
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
How does one equate a commercial enterprise like advertising with the first amendment?
US Supreme Court Case: SANTA CLARA COUNTY v. SOUTHERN PAC. R. CO., 118 U.S. 394 (1886)
Headnote:
"The court does not wish to hear argument on the question whether the provision in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which forbids a State to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws, applies to these corporations. We are all of the opinion that it does."
This has been used as the basis for granting corporations the same rights as given to individual citizens in future court decisions throughout the nation, although not officially part of any decision.
Oh yea, corporate personhood.
One of the biggest loads of crap ever to come out of the courts. I wonder how much So. Pac. "donated" to that judge's re-election.
Paul, so the one you cite here the original case law that started it all? How long ago was this? (just curious)
umm.. I believe the original case was 123(?) years ago
Speech is speech. Albeit, it comes in different flavors. This would fall under commercial speech.
Personally, I don't see this ruling being able to stand. Unless the city can prove that their is a legitimate safety risk in allowing these to stand, I can't see this passing constitutional muster.
But, hell, what do I know.
Personally, I say let them stand anyways. Let people do what they want with their buildings.
So if Move-on or some other organization wanted to buy ad time on Glenn Beck's program that showed him to be a lying sack of rodent droppings, and Fox denied them that spot, Fox would be violating the first amendent?
Not exactly.
Fox News is a private corporation. They could choose to do whatever they want with their network. It's up to the people to decide whether they will tune in and watch.
Here, the city, and their ordinance, is a product of government action - precisely what the constitution regulates.
Although not exactly analogous, refer to the Boy Scouts SCOTUS decision, along with Hurley v. Irish-American LGB.
http://www.aclu.org/scotus/1994/23052prs19941001.html
Sounds like they get to use the first amendment both ways.
Protection of, and protection from, the first amendment.
This isn't a free-speech issue. It's zoning. And the City has Home Rule on zoning.
Speech is speech. Albeit, it comes in different flavors. This would fall under commercial speech.
Yeah, but take the example of slander and libel. A person in the public arena has a MUCH harder time proving either than your average citizen.
Banning billboards? Whack. Banning 500 foot high vodka bottles? Not quite the same thing.
Yes, you're right that a person in the public spectrum has a harder time proving slander or defamation. That's how it should be, though. Considering that you have access to the media, and have, most likely, thrust yourself into the media limelight, then you shouldn't be able to sue a person for defamation or slander, unless they affirmatively made false statements about a public official, with intent and malice. And that is what the law says, as well.