Court to hear church's appeal of sign restrictions

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court will decide whether an Arizona town violates the First Amendment by restricting where and when a church can place signs advertising Sunday morning services.

The justices said Tuesday they will hear an appeal from the Good News Community Church. The church argues that the town of Gilbert, Arizona, applies stricter rules to church signs than to other types of non-commercial signs.

Click to expand...

If I can put up a sign, and keep it there for months, then a church should be able to do that too. First Amendment 101, folks.

Discussion?

Article is here.

danarhea said:

If I can put up a sign, and keep it there for months, then a church should be able to do that too. First Amendment 101, folks.

Discussion?

Article is here.

Click to expand...

Most towns in my area don't allow any signs on public property. They will be removed and thrown away. As a Realtor, for instance, for open house signs, they had to be placed on the homeowner's side of the sidewalk or that $75 metal sign would be found in the dumpster behind the police station.

I'd much prefer that be the case. Having Burma Shave signs all over hell and gone is unsightly.

As to your particular post, I'd take issue with political signs allowed but not churches. Frankly, I think they all look like crap, though.

danarhea said:

If I can put up a sign, and keep it there for months, then a church should be able to do that too. First Amendment 101, folks.

Discussion?

Article is here.

Click to expand...

They screwed up. You can't allow speech from one group and not another if you're the government.

Maggs had the solution - no signs on public property that are not either regulatory signs (speed limits, no parking, etc.) or public information signs (public park activity announcements, reading of poetry at the library, etc.) printed and placed by the government for public benefit. No political, commercial, religious or other non-government signs (including those danged yard sale signs that block my view at intersections) on public property.

danarhea said:

If I can put up a sign, and keep it there for months, then a church should be able to do that too. First Amendment 101, folks.

Discussion?

Article is here.

Click to expand...

Seems slam-dunk. Unless there is something I am missing. I never heard of special restrictions on "non-commercial" speech before. THat by itself sounds unconstitutional.

MaggieD said:

Most towns in my area don't allow any signs on public property. They will be removed and thrown away. As a Realtor, for instance, for open house signs, they had to be placed on the homeowner's side of the sidewalk or that $75 metal sign would be found in the dumpster behind the police station.

I'd much prefer that be the case. Having Burma Shave signs all over hell and gone is unsightly.

As to your particular post, I'd take issue with political signs allowed but not churches. Frankly, I think they all look like crap, though.

Click to expand...

I'm thinking Billboards along a highway. But, yes, those are always on private lands.

MaggieD said:

I'd much prefer that be the case. Having Burma Shave signs all over hell and gone is unsightly.

Click to expand...

Oh my, NO Burma Shave signs? Roadside entertainment before the days of Super Highways ??? True American poetry in advertising ? Ste Maggie, say it ain't so.....

Even the Everly Brothers loved Burma Shave


The church could use stand-up cut-outs of the Everly Brothers.. for signage.



Yeah DANA, it does seem to be basic but in some locales signage is tied to Zoning restrictions.

Thom Paine

danarhea said:

If I can put up a sign, and keep it there for months, then a church should be able to do that too. First Amendment 101, folks.

Discussion?

Article is here.

Click to expand...

this will be an easy 9-0 ruling for the church. i will be highly surprised if it goes any other way.

danarhea said:

If I can put up a sign, and keep it there for months, then a church should be able to do that too. First Amendment 101, folks.

Discussion?

Article is here.

Click to expand...

Your first clue that not all is as you think it should have came from the fact that the church keeps losing on this. A first step should be to read more, not make a knee jerk reaction without facts. Let me help: 08-17384: Clyde Reed, et al v. Town of Gilbert, Arizona, et al :: Ninth Circuit :: US Court of Appeals Cases :: Justia

The church filed suit because religious organizations where held to a different standard on signs. The city agreed, and changed the rules so that churches where subject to the same rules. The church decided it was not good enough and continued the suit...and has lost repeatedly.

Reading the ruling, I can see arguments for both sides, but suspect the city is closer to being right than the church. It pays to fact check.

Redress said:

Your first clue that not all is as you think it should have came from the fact that the church keeps losing on this. A first step should be to read more, not make a knee jerk reaction without facts. Let me help: 08-17384: Clyde Reed, et al v. Town of Gilbert, Arizona, et al :: Ninth Circuit :: US Court of Appeals Cases :: Justia

The church filed suit because religious organizations where held to a different standard on signs. The city agreed, and changed the rules so that churches where subject to the same rules. The church decided it was not good enough and continued the suit...and has lost repeatedly.

Reading the ruling, I can see arguments for both sides, but suspect the city is closer to being right than the church. It pays to fact check.

Click to expand...

I have to agree. This doesn't sound like what is being presented in the OP at all. It may have been the case to begin with, but even that wasn't really set that the SCOTUS would have ruled "9-0" for the church. The sign code in no way restricted what could be placed on the signs, although certain information was required. Nor is it unreasonable to expect certain restrictions be in place for certain kinds of signs compared to other signs.

The political sign rules had specific regulations related to their usage, 60 days before, 15 days after the election. The sign rules for the group in question here were different because they were in keeping with the purpose of the sign and the reasons for the town wanting those signs to be temporary. Now that they have changed the rules, there is very little for them to argue about here. As long as the town is enforcing them all equally, then it is just them complaining.

http://www.gilbertaz.gov/home/showdocument?id=1494