The American Civil Liberties Union has taken
up the case of a Plainfield man who says a city zoning ordinance tramples his First Amendment right to free speech.
Plainfield officials told the man, Nick Crews, to take down a political sign he posted in his yard because it was set out more than 30 days prior to an election.
Cities and towns are losing these kinds of court battles.
Should government regulate political signs? If so, where should it draw the line?
Plainfield officials told the man, Nick Crews, to take down a political sign he posted in his yard because it was set out more than 30 days prior to an election.
Cities and towns are losing these kinds of court battles.
Should government regulate political signs? If so, where should it draw the line?
Back to Top
IBJ Conversations
8 Comments
Add Comment
Further, I submit my opinion that if the sign had been supporting McCain, or any conservative, that the ICLU would have had no interest in the case.
You state that Municipalities typically have ordinances such as these to protect property values against long-term littering of the landscape with signs of a variety of subjects. as if it were the government's job to do so. If a neighbor of this man claims this negatively affects his property value he can take it up with the proper authorities on an individual basis. Let the individual decide this, not the government. A blanket ban from the government with (what I would assume) little to no evidence as to how negatively a property value would be affected is out of line. It is clear violation of this man's property rights.
You state: This ordinance is NOT stating that political signs cannot be displayed... but that is EXACTLY what it is doing. The ordinance states that this man can not display his sign. Whatever time limit is placed on it doesn't matter matter. This man is legally barred from placing his sign on his yard. I wonder if you would advocate that government agents show up at his house and forcibly remove the sign, or issue him a subpoena.
You ask: who is left to determine what is “reasonable?” It seems that you are advocating that we should rely on the government to determine for us what is reasonable. You want to take the interpretation away from ordinary citizens it appears. Wouldn't it be better if every yard had more trees? Should the government go around and fine or sue individuals that don't have this exact amount of trees.
You state: Those that we place in a position of responsibility to protect us and our property values What a scary statement from you. The government should be enforcing individual property rights instead of doing its best to protect us from our evil neighbors that put up sings a week too early.
Ultimately this issue is one of individual freedom versus the freedom of the government to determine what is right. Individual freedoms are more important than arbitrary rules used to limit property rights.
Respect and consideration has gone out the window under the guise of protecting someone's first amendment rights but what about the quiet enjoyment of another's property without garish signage diminshing the neighborhood? For years candidates and supporters put up their signs and never take them down. Right versus responsibility, you shouldn't have one without the other but the courts do a lousy job of enforcing responsibilities, but hey, rights cannot be trampled upon.
Mr. Crews says he wants the sign to start a conversation but I doubt he would be receptive to anyone coming up to his house at anytime (say 3 AM) to discuss his political views. This would clearly be an unreasonable time but with no ordinance to prevent it, he is left with any individual's choice as to what is reasonable.
You state, Mr. Crews says he wants the sign to start a conversation but I doubt he would be receptive to anyone coming up to his house at anytime (say 3 AM) to discuss his political views. This would clearly be an unreasonable time but with no ordinance to prevent it, he is left with any individual’s choice as to what is reasonable.
This argument makes no sense. If people went up to his door and knocked on it at 3 am he can (and probably would) legally bar people from coming on to his property. That's why the police and government are there. To enforce his property rights. It's all these little laws and ordinances that gradually erode our freedoms.