- Joined
- Aug 30, 2009
- Messages
- 3,827
- Reaction score
- 1,374
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Independent
No, you're proving my point.
If the brightness -- the intensity -- of the sign changes the picture, then the brightness is part of the content of the picture.
If the volume -- the intensity -- of the soundtrack changes, then so, too, does the content, in the exact same way the brightness of the sign, as you say, changes it.
Now, I asked above --
If volume is not content, would you argue that volume is irrelevant to music? That, say, "Bolero" would be the same piece of music if it didn't start off very quiet and slowly gain volume as the intensity of the dance increased?
So there would be no First Amendment issue in requiring that a performance of "Bolero" be kept entirely to a uniform, quiet volume with no increase at all? That would not change the piece at all?
What about restricting sudden loud explosions in the middle of a movie? As in, you simply aren't allowed to have them in your soundtrack, period? No issues there?
Making a sign brighter does not block out more of the surrounding images the way a commercial can block out the surrounding noises. In fact, brightening an already clear picture can make said picture and words difficult to read.
As an experiment, try brightening your computer screen. No, billboard advertisers make their ads the brightness they want to make the picture appealing. When they want better visibility they go for a larger sign, not a brighter one.