Can’t have campaign signs on your own property? Have to agree with the ACLU on this one.

Washington Post: Signs of Discord Emerge Over Campaign Materials

In a rural patch of southwestern Virginia, where pink, flowering redbud trees fill a vast valley tucked between two mountain ranges, local leaders consider political signs clutter.

So when a U.S. House candidate began peppering the area with red, white and blue signs a year before the Nov. 6 election, Botetourt County officials took notice. They dusted off a long-standing ordinance restricting the length of time that campaign signs can be erected, even on private property.

Opponents of the law fought back, saying the restrictions violated free speech protections outlined in the First Amendment. They contacted the American Civil Liberties Union, which threatened to sue.

“Censoring the timing of expression can undermine free speech just as much as censoring content,” said Kent Willis, executive director of the ACLU of Virginia.

If the city restricts all signage on public property equally, then fine. If political signage is only allowed for a specified time period on public property and all candidates are subject to the same restriction, fine. I haven’t read the sign ordinance (and won’t…I’ll just assume the article is telling the full story), but it sounds as if political signage actually receives preferential treatment, if in fact it rates an exception that no other signage enjoys (actually being permitted to post when others are forbidden from posting temporary signs altogether). So, if the ACLU is challenging the ordinance for its restrictions on publicly placed signage connected with political campaigns it should lose if the facts are as presented in the article. (Of course, if restrictions are being placed specifically on political signs and other signs are allowed, we have a different fact scenario).

But banning signage on private property? Survey says…XXX. The ACLU should smack the spit out of the town’s mouth pretty easily.

Comments are closed.