Freedom Of Speech Has No Time Limit

"We asked someone with a 132 IQ  and has a familiarity with "liberries" to check out Perrotti's assessment of the U.S. SC decision-here are some early points to ponder ... You see class, she had a small sign, not in her window as was said, but on her own lawn at home { HER SIGN WAS 24 INCHES BY 36 INCHES } AND MOST IMPORTANTLY THE ISSUE WAS THE CONTENT, NOT THE SIZE OF THE SIGN."

Mr. DeAngelis  once again is not correct in what he has posted on his site. Perhaps the IQ of 132 was not high enough.

The 24 x 36 inch sign was the first sign she was told to take down.  The second sign, and the one that caused all the commotion, was a very tiny 8 1/2  x 11 inch sign in her window that said, “For Peace In The Gulf.”

Second, this issue was not about content. The city was against all signs, and was not targeting her message. See below:

“Ladue's sign ordinance generally prohibits all signs within its 8 square miles. Exemptions are included for real estate signs, road and safety hazard signs, health inspection signs, public transportation markers and commercial signs in commercially zoned or industrial districts.”  “

“Ladue officials think signs are ugly. "Ladue has comprehensively protected aesthetics from its beginning" in 1936, Cherrick said. "Police have enforced the ordinance against commercial signs that say, `Siding going up,' and against ones that say `Happy Birthday.' "”

“Of course that sign must conform to town regulations. The town can amend the size of the sign and the location of the sign but not the content of the sign.”

Wrong again.  Actually the Town can regulate content.  It can limit signs of a commercial message, which are not seen by the courts as political speech. 

However, they cannot regulate political speech on private property. The Town can not limit the size, tell you where to put it on your property, nor can it say that a sign is ugly and has to be taken down.  The Supreme Court upheld that one’s freedom of speech was of more value than aesthetics.  As I read online one person said, “Democracy can be ugly,”

In Middlebury, the complaint about the “Support Our Troops” signs was that they exceeded a finite time limit imposed by the Town.  That is not constitutional and has been struck down every time it has been challenged.  You cannot put time limits on freedom of speech.  You can’t say to someone, you only have these freedoms for 10 days, 30 days, or whatever.

In addition, the Town cannot order the MVFD to take a sign off of the private property of others.  If the property owner allows the MVFD to place a sign on their lawn, and believes and identifies with the message, then the Town is infringing on the free speech rights of the property owner. You don’t have to be the maker of the sign to display it, just as very few of us ever construct their own yard signs that support political candidates.

The Town is violating the Constitutional rights of free speech by imposing time limits on signs of free expression.  They cannot do that, and should reexamine their zoning ordinances regarding free speech signage on private property.

By the way, what are liberries?