From The Progressive:
“Impeach Bush� Sign = Littering?
Kevin Egler is a teacher in Kent, Ohio.
To say the least, he is displeased with George W. Bush and the President’s performance in office.
So much so that Egler has placed more than 400 “Impeach Bush� signs around town, often on public property.
On July 25, he got a ticket for placing one of them in a public garden.
He was cited for “unlawful advertising.�
Egler asked the police officer why he didn’t have a right to place his sign there, but realtors can place their “For Sale� signs on public medians any time they want, the Cleveland Plain Dealer reported.
According to Egler, the officer said, “You don’t know the difference?�
The officer didn’t answer his own question.
But as Egler’s attorney, Bob Fitrakis, points out, the answer seems obvious: Commercial speech is permitted; political speech is verboten, even though political speech is the most protected kind of speech under our Constitution.
This is discrimination on the basis of the content of speech, which is supposed to be against the law.
Egler had a court date on August 9, and he brought with him “two dozen photos of other posters that appear to have gone unchallenged by the city, including announcements of poker tournaments, garage sales, and military recruiting drives,� the Plain Dealer reported.
In court, the city of Kent moved to dismiss the “unlawful advertising� charge against Egler.
But it didn’t give up on its prosecution of Egler.
“I was offered a deal by the city today: Plead guilty to disorderly conduct and pay a $25 fine, or else they would file a littering charge against me,� Egler reported back to friends via e-mail. “I feel I’m not guilty of anything so we took the ‘or else part’ of the deal.�
Now instead of facing a $100 fine, Egler could have to fork over $500. [full text]
Kmareka.com 
Without the right of free speech, saying or writing what we wish, or putting words on banners, billboards orin newspapers, the very idea of America and the premises upon which this nation was created, vanishes and we are no better than the failed nations of history. There is no cornerstone more solid in the notion of what this country is, than the right to say (and think) what we wish. Of course this means that to get the meaningful, we also have put up with silliness, stupidity, mean speech and contentious speech. But that was a price the founders of this nation understood and memorialized in our Constitution. The loss of our ability to be candid as we wish, when we wish, is a terrible trend whether it is couched in terms of political correctness or telling us “not to offend.” Freedom can be offensive, and perhaps should be; along with the freedom to offend comes the freedom to defend and respond. So I say, hooray for Kevin Eglar. I may not agree, but let’s have more yard signs!
Donald, while I share your thoughts on free speech, I believe this case is more than that. The key is that these signs were placed on public land, not private. I have no problem with someone placing such a sign in his or her front yard. But regulations must exist for public property, as this is property we all share. Cluttering it with signs, regardless of the purpose, is not beneficial to anyone. While David and The Progressive may see this as an affront to free speech, I wonder how they might react if the signs contained Bible verses, or pictures of the Crucifix. The right to free speech does not mean you have the right to say anything anywhere you want. Property rights exist as well.
Real estate and yard sale signs are more directional, so I can see an argument that they are different. But I would prefer no distinction. I’m tired of the pollution on our public property by real estate signs, garage sale signs, and the ads now found on the poles near every intersection (“We Buy Houses”, “Avoid Foreclosure”, “Yard Cleaning”, etc). Our public property should be more vigilantly protected.
Mike, the point is that a distinction was made, or is being made. There has to be consistency, or Mr Wolberg’s point stands that commercial speech is privileged, and political speech is not.
But you also raise a good point about religious speech on public property. But how would you feel if Muslims, or atheists started advertising on these same spaces?
I can understand that there would be a distinction; real estate ads may be tacky, but they’re not offensive the way political or religious speech can be.
I suspect the “right” answer is setting some guidelines. I have no problem with anything being stuck on a telephone pole; but what about median strips and the like? Those should be off-limits to all, or open to all.
But I will listen to any reasoned opinion on this.
I tend to be more of an absolutist on this issue. However, there are limits as no Constitutional right is absolute. There are levels of protection of speech and commercial speech, which the realty signs are, are afforded less protection than the political impeachment signs. What occurred here turned that order of protection on its head. We shouldn’t be too shocked the find that the officer couldn’t answer his own question.
Even political speech is subject to time, place and manner restrictions. For example, I would argue that the town/city could prohibit all signs from a median on the basis that signs could present a traffic hazard. However, by permitting commercial signs such as the realty signs or yard sale signs and banning the impeachment signs from the same space is imposing a restriction on speech based on content – and that’s patently unconstitutional.
Some communities try to limit the size of political signs on private property, or limit the time when they can go up and when they must be removed. Most of the time these ordinances fall based on time, place and manner provisions. There was a situation in a local community where one campaign, (a republican, but the manager was a friend of mine) was warned that the campaign’s lawn signs had to be a certain size, etc., or they would be torn down/removed and the campaign fined. There was a case on point that prohibited the community from such actions and I provided that information to the campaign. In the end, justice prevailed and the signs remained.
Governments, often local governments, do stupid things that impact the constitutional rights of individuals. I don’t know which is more frightening – that they violate people’s rights, or that they don’t know they are violating protected rights.
The reason this post made it to this blog is because the signs were anti-Bush and therefore drew sympathy from the blogger. The point I made above it that religious symbols would almost certainly earn the scorn of the same crowd. klaus, I don’t believe the Muslim or atheist words would be appropriate on public property; nor would I support the Bible verses or Christian symbols.
Political signs such as the one in the post above don’t belong on public property. Because it is public property doesn’t mean anyone can use it anyway he wants (such as blocking traffic on Mineral Spring Avenue). Commercial signs are a form of advertising, which doesn’t belong on public property either. There is a distinction, but I think they should both fall under the same regulations.
Quite frankly I think Mr. Egler is a baffoon. His case may just make those little yard sale signs families put up on Saturday mornings illegal. A true hero.
Mike, I suspect you’re right about the reason this post was made. Why is that an issue?
Mr Schoos, once again, thank you for your reasoned and nuanced explanation. You very effectively clarified the issues and provided an equally clear explanation. You do this consistently and I very much enjoy your comments.
Mike again: I agree with you, too; your position boils down to consistency. One type of speech can;t be singled out for exclusion, and that is Mr Schoos’ point as well. And I also think Mr Egler is a buffoon.