Freedom Of Speech And Appeasing Political Enemies

“Remember all those horrific signs on 64/63 that made it look like you were entering a ghetto when you came into Middlebury? They have been removed.”

Horrific ghetto signs is how Mr. DeAngelis describes the patriotic signs put up by the MVFD on private property. The signs in a nutshell, read, “Support Our Troops.” 

The same rights that allow Mr. DeAngelis to have and support his freedom of speech to publish his website is being defended at this very moment by the brave men and women in Afghanistan and in Iraq.  He has a lot of audacity to characterize the signs that support their effort as “horrific signs” when brave men and women are dying everyday in the name of freedom.

The only reason why these signs are being targeted is because the MVFD put them up, and it is their opinion that the man who Tom Gormley replaced is the one orchestrating the complaints through his various minions in Town.  It is high-time that the BOS stop appeasing those who seek to destabilize the MVFD and the First Selectman.  This only serves to enable them.

Appeasing political enemies is just what they are doing.  Voting to demand the picture of Ed St. John be put back on the wall at Fire HQ was a huge mistake.  It ignored the almost unanimous vote of its members and even more shocking, it seeks to support an individual who the members of the MVFD believe has done a great amount of damage to the Department and to the Town. (See Childish Actions).  It ignores the reasons why the picture was removed in the first place and once again appeases allies of Mr. St. John, without any benefit to the First Selectman.  It will do nothing to stem the attacks on the First Selectman, but rather will be used to hurt him. It will also be used by his political enemies to drive a wedge between the MVFD and the BOS.  Score one more for Mr. St. John.  Its working Ed. Its brilliant.

But, lets talk about signs. These were signs at various locations in Town that pronounced the support of our troops by the MVFD.  They WERE located on private property until the Zoning and Planning Commission sent a cease and desist order to the MVFD saying they should be removed. The MVFD complied.

Under what authority should they be removed?  Some zoning regulation? A Town ordinance,maybe?  But guess what?  This is a violation of the First Amendment rights of the property owner that guarantees freedom of speech.  

It is not Constitutional for a town to stifle freedom of speech by controlling political signs on private property. , and the Supreme Court backs this up in its historic 1994 case.  See below.

A Town cannot regulate a political sign on a homeowner’s private property.  They cannot control the size, the aesthetics of the sign, they cannot control time limits, nor can they fine, or charge for an individual that in anyway seeks to block one’s freedom of speech.  You would think Mr. DeAngelis would be supporting such freedoms, but somehow he appears to have other political allegiances.

Is the Town opening itself up for a law suit from the ACLU? Perhaps.

It may be prudent for the Zoning Commission to reconsider restrictions on private political signage in order to divert a potential embarrassing,  if not costly mistake. Towns across the Nation have paid dearly for this same mistake.  Lets not have this happen in Middlebury. The signs must go back up. Lets support our troops that are harm’s way.

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

Syllabus

CITY OF LADUE et al. v. GILLEO

certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the eighth circuit

No. 92-1856. Argued February 23, 1994 -- Decided June 13, 1994

An ordinance of petitioner City of Ladue bans all residential signs but those falling within one of ten exemptions, for the principal purpose of minimizing the visual clutter associated with such signs. Respondent Gilleo filed this action, alleging that the ordinance violated her right to free speech by prohibiting her from displaying a sign stating, "For Peace in the Gulf," from her home. The District Court found the ordinance unconstitutional, and the Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the ordinance was a "content based" regulation, and that Ladue's substantial interests in enacting it were not sufficiently compelling to support such a restriction.

Held: The ordinance violates a Ladue resident's right to free speech. Pp. 4-16.

(a) While signs pose distinctive problems and thus are subject to municipalities' police powers, measures regulating them inevitably affect communication itself. Such a regulation may be challenged on the ground that it restricts too little speech because its exemptions discriminate on the basis of signs' messages, or on the ground that it prohibits too much protected speech. For purposes of this case, the validity of Ladue's submission that its ordinance's various exemptions are free of impermissible content or viewpoint discrimination is assumed. Pp. 4-10.

(b) Although Ladue has a concededly valid interest in minimizing visual clutter, it has almost completely foreclosed an important and distinct medium of expression to political, religious, or personal messages. Prohibitions foreclosing entire media may be completely free of content or viewpoint discrimination, but such measures can suppress too much speech by eliminating a commonmeans of speaking. Pp. 10-13.

(c) Ladue's attempt to justify the ordinance as a "time, place, or manner" restriction fails because alternatives such as handbills and newspaper advertisements are inadequate substitutes for the important medium that Ladue has closed off. Displaying a sign from ones' own residence carries a message quite distinct from placing the same sign someplace else, or conveying the same text or picture by other means, for it provides information about the speaker's identity, an important component of many attempts to persuade. Residential signs are also an unusually cheap and convenient form of communication. Furthermore, the audience intended to be reached by a residential sign--neighbors--could not be reached nearly as well by other means. Pp. 13-14.

(d) A special respect for individual liberty in the home has long been part of this Nation's culture and law and has a special resonance when the government seeks to constrain a person's ability to speak there. The decision reached here does not leave Ladue powerless to address the ills that may be associated with residential signs. In addition, residents' self interest in maintaining their own property values and preventing "visual clutter" in their yards and neighborhoods diminishes the danger of an "unlimited" proliferation of signs. Pp. 15-16.

-------------------