PL PACKET 02181992 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

a little complex because it involves several steps.The start- ing point of the justices'reasoning is that noncommercial speech,including political,religious,social,and other forms of expression, is entitled to a higher degree of protection under the First Amendment than commercial speech,which ri advertises or identifies businesses.Looking at the ordinance, it was apparent that every business could have some form of on-premises sign. The way the ordinance actually worked, a few commercial signs were permitted off prem- ises.Given the ordinance's definition of"on premises,"many r types of noncommercial speech(e.g.,"Impeach the Mayor," poly "Support Your Favorite Church," "Protect the Whales") 3'C'-,Ov,I KIREST F would have no "premises."Thus, someone advertising a motel would have a greater opportunity to use signs than someone supporting a particular candidate for governor.The general ban on off-premises signs effectively banned(or at least severely restricted)noncommercial signs. In the process of reaching a decision,the Court addressed J many of the secondary issues in sign regulation.Most of its Ica answers to other questions about sign regulation favored local governments and sign regulation in general.A plurality of the Court and three of the dissenters agreed that,as a mat- ter of law,billboards and other forms of outdoor signage are t intended to divert,and do divert,a driver's attention from the roadway.In their view,a city is not required to produce evidence to support the claim that a sign regulation advances its interest in traffic safety.Two of the justices who voted to San Diego's sign regulations, which effectively banned strike down the ordinance would not conclude, without noncommercial messages like this one, were challenged in the clear and convincing evidence, that the ordinance would Metromedia case. The ordinance was struck down, but the U.S. promote traffic safety or was necessary for aesthetic reasons. Supreme Court's ruling in the case provides a firm legal basis The majority view on the traffic issue is extremely impor- for restrictive sign regulation. tant to regulators. Billboard companies have produced studies that purport to show that outdoor signage creates no traffic hazard.The Metromedia decision is authority for the of that Court.It is followed by an examination of some very position that a community need not produce evidence to recent decisions by United States Circuit Courts of Appeals prove that billboards are traffic hazards.As such,it can be including decisions in two cases that involved challenges to argued that the Metromedia decision relieves the city of complete prohibitions of portable signs.These appeals cases, what may be a difficult task—proving a substantial relation- two of which the Supreme Court has refused to review,serve ship between the end sought(traffic safety)and the means as good examples of the application of the reasoning used by used(sign regulations). the Supreme Court in Metromedia, Inc. v. City of San When achievement or protection of an aesthetic goal is the Diego,453 U.S.490,101 S.Ct.2882(1981),'and Members primary end of a sign regulation,however,the city should of City Council v. Taxpayers for Vincent,466 U.S.789,104 still be prepared to introduce evidence of the relationship be- S.Ct.2118(1984), (hereinafter Vincent),discussed below. tween.that end and the means used.It is easy for billboard Metromedia is the leading Supreme Court case in the area companies to produce evidence of other eyesores in a com- of sign regulation.In that case,the high court struck down munity and,on that basis,to argue that a city has arbitrarily a city ordinance that imposed substantial restrictions on out- singled out billboards for control.The opinion of the Court door signs. The ordinance distinguished between on- in Metromedia did not address whether aesthetics alone may premises and off-premises signs. It permitted on-premises support sign regulations.However, the deference given to commercial signs but forbade all off-premises signs, with the city's conclusion that signs present traffic hazards may certain exceptions.As the Court noted in its opinion,most arguably be extended to its conclusions about the need to noncommercial messages have no premises and,thus,were achieve or protect an aesthetic. Regulators should also be effectively banned. mindful that the Supreme Court decision in Vincent, Although unable to agree on a unified majority opinion, discussed below,clearly emphasized the importance of a rec- six members of the Court did agree that the ordinance was ord that shows factual support for the sign classifications invalid under the First Amendment.But the ordinance was employed by regulators. not ruled invalid on the basis of its regulation of commer- The ruling in Metromedia emphasizes the importance of cial speech,which,according to the justices, met constitu- a four-part test used to determine the validity of restrictions tional requirements. Rather, it was the effective ban on on commercial speech.The test was developed by the Court noncommercial signage that prompted the Court to in- one year earlier in Central Hudson v. Public Service validate the regulation. Coimm'n., 447 U.S. 557, 553-556, 100 S.Ct. 2343 (1980). The reasoning-of the decision, while straightforward, is The test,which is actually a rule against overbroad restric- 18