TurretLauncher t1_j858r9r wrote
Reply to comment by cwalton505 in Bakery Owner Sues [Conway] New Hampshire Town After Officials Demand He Paint Over Donut Mural Made by High Schoolers by ArbitraryOrder
It's literally "a mural that local high school students created last summer."
cwalton505 t1_j85ga2p wrote
I don't see how that changes anything from a legal standpoint. And I will reiterate the sign is fine and they should adjust the bylaws.
TurretLauncher t1_j85k0ex wrote
Then you obviously have no understanding of the relevant legal principles.
> Leavitt’s Country Bakery owner Sean Young teamed up with the Institute for Justice (IJ) to file the lawsuit, which argues that Conway’s sign code violates his and other town residents’ First Amendment rights.
There is an important difference between these two. Leavitt's speech (e.g., the store's logo) falls within the First Amendment category known as 'commercial speech':
> The “different degree of protection” accorded commercial speech has a number of consequences as regards other First Amendment doctrine. For instance, somewhat broader times, places, and manner regulations are to be tolerated, and the rule against prior restraints may be inapplicable. Further, disseminators of commercial speech are not protected by the overbreadth doctrine.
However, in this case Leavitt simply provided a space (in First Amendment terms, a 'forum') within which the local high school students could create their own speech.
Murals are within the First Amendment category known as 'artistic expression'. And since the high school students did not charge any fee for the art they produced, this artistic expression was by definition not created for commercial purposes, but was instead created as “pure speech” which as a matter of First Amendment law is fully entitled to comprehensive protection.
cwalton505 t1_j85kvzz wrote
Let's see what the courts say over us two idiots then eh?
TurretLauncher t1_j85nj63 wrote
> The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One’s right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.
US Supreme Court, in West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette (1943)
cwalton505 t1_j85rze8 wrote
Say what you want, agree or disagree as much as you want, but there are sign laws everywhere.
TurretLauncher t1_j85szo1 wrote
> IJ’s fight against similar violations of the First Amendment rights of small business owners throughout the country includes a 2020 victory that allowed a North Dakota saloon to keep up its mural, a 2017 win for a Florida video game store that wanted to display an inflatable Mario in front of its store, and a 2013 ruling which permitted a California gym to advertise on a sandwich board out front.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments