BLS
10-07-2007, 10:57 PM
It's long....but a section is copy/paste of the ACLU letter written in the Florida case. If anybody has the PDF, please let me know where I can get it.
I'm looking for input, but please don't get too granular.
Hello,
I am emailing you today because I believe my Constitutional Right of Free Speech covered under the 1st Amendment is being violated by my local City Government in Hastings, MN.
I have never been politically active because I don’t care much for politicians in general to be blatantly honest.
Recently I have discovered one of the few politicians who is an honest, principled man, and he is running for President of the United States.
U.S. Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) of the 14th Congressional District is a huge proponent of protecting our civil liberties and is the only Anti-War Republican running for President. And while these are not the reasons I had begun researching him, I have learned a lot about how our liberties are manipulated and in some cases stripped away with little regard of the US Constitution. I have been so inspired by finding a honest politician that I have joined his grassroots effort to help get him elected.
Two months ago I placed a Ron Paul Campaign banner on my property in Hastings, MN. I purchased this item, and it was not given to me by the campaign.
A few days ago, I received a letter from City Hall stating that I must remove the banner by Monday, October 08, 2007, because it is in violation of a city ordinance, although the letter never specifically states which ordinance or what it violates.
I have decided that under numerous other incidents that provide precedence, I will NOT remove the banner as it is a violation of my 1st Amendment right of free speech to order it’s removal.
I have found several similar cases, including an almost identical case in Florida just recently.
http://www.dailycommercial.com/main.asp?SectionID=31&SubSectionID=162&ArticleID=21176
This gentleman was also told to remove his yard sign, and he also believed it was a violation of his rights.
He contacted the ACLU and they immediately took his case and sent his local code enforcement officer this letter (I have attached the story as file ACLUsep2007_web.pdf):
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION
FOUNDATION OF FLORIDA
CENTRAL REGION OFFICE
231 East Colonial Drive, Suite 150
Orlando, Florida 32801-1228
August 29, 2007
VIA FACSIMILE
Betty McMinamen
Code Enforcement Officer
City of Clermont
P.O. Box 120219
Clermont, FL 34712-0219
Re: August 23, 2007 Letter to Bryan J. and Leilani J. Orr
Dear Ms. McMinamen:
This letter is written on behalf of Bryan J. and Leilani J. Orr regarding your
August 23, 2007 letter demanding that they immediately cease and desist the placement
of a political sign on their property, purportedly in violation of the City of Clermont’s
ordinance requiring a political sign permit and payment of a $50.00 refundable fee. We
believe you have misapplied the ordinance and, to the extent you would apply it to the
Orrs, that it is plainly unconstitutional.
First, City Code § 102-18 provides that “The candidate whose sign is erected . . .
shall deposit with the city clerk” the required fee. The Orrs are not candidates so, by the
terms of the ordinance itself, they cannot be required to pay a fee. Moreover, if by
enforcing § 102-18 against the Orrs you are taking the position that they are prohibited
from posting signs on their property unless the candidate named on their sign pays the
fee, we believe such a position violates the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment
to the Constitution.
The law is clear that the display of political signs constitutes pure speech that is
protected by the First Amendment. Indeed, the Supreme Court has held that “the First
Amendment has its fullest and most urgent application to speech uttered during a
campaign for political office.” Eu v. San Francisco County Democratic Central
Committee, 489 U.S. 214, 223 (1989). Because the City of Clermont’s code specifically
singles out political signs as a category, it is a content-based restriction that must be
supported by a compelling governmental interest. Further, the means chosen to effect
such interests must be narrowly tailored to achieve that objective. See Boos v. Barry, 485
U.S. 312, 321 (1988).
PAGE 2
Letter to Ms. McMinamen
August 29, 2007
Page 2
The ACLU believes that the City’s restriction quite clearly cannot meet this
heavy, strict scrutiny burden. I call your attention to several cases from around the
country that have struck down various ordinances restricting the display of political signs:
Arlington County Republican Committee v. Arlington County, Virginia, 983 F.2d 587 (4th
Cir. 1993) (two sign limit unconstitutional even where the ordinance was content
neutral); Knoeffler v. Town of Mamakating, 87 F. Supp.2d 322 (S.D.N.Y. 2000)
(restriction of political lawn signs violated First Amendment); Curry v. Prince George’s
County, Maryland, 33 F. Supp.2d 447 (D. Md. 1999) (durational limit with respect to
political signs unconstitutional); Savago v. Village of New Paltz, 214 F.Supp.2d 252
(N.D.N.Y. 2002) (Village’s sign ordinance unconstitutional). See also Rappa v. New
Castle County, 18 F.3d 1043 (3rd Cir. 1994) (invalidating state statute regulating
placement of signs).
The United States Court of Appeals decision in Beaulieu v. City of Alabaster, 454
F.3d 1219, 1233 (11th Cir. 2006) is particularly relevant. That case involved a city
ordinance that imposed bureaucratic requirements on political signs that did not apply to
other signs. The court struck the ordinance as unconstitutional, holding that “[i]n sum,
under the sign ordinance it is easier, cheaper, and faster for Beaulieu to post a real estate
sign than a campaign sign. Because political signs are subject to more regulatory burden
than real estate signs, the sign ordinance discriminates against political speech in favor of
commercial speech.” Applying the City of Clermont’s ordinances to require the Orrs to
obtain a permit or pay a fee to post a political sign, while those same ordinances allow
them to post a real estate sign with no permission or requirement is precisely what the
Eleventh Circuit found unconstitutional in Beauliu.
Please confirm in writing faxed to the above number no later than 5:00 p.m. this
Friday that you will not take the enforcement action against the Orrs described in your
August 23, 2007 letter, and that they may post their political sign without the need for a
permit or the payment of any fee. If we do not receive such confirmation we are prepared
to challenge the ordinance in federal court.
Please contact me if you would like to discuss this matter further.
Sincerely,
Glenn M. Katon
cc: Bryan J. and Leilani J. Orr
James K. Hitt, Director of Planning
Daniel Mantzaris, City Attorney
For your reference, I have attached the city’s code enforcement document in a PDF format.
I have, also, found a legal opinion, from the State Attorney General in Hawaii, which stated a similar code to be unconstitutional, and unenforceable, both at the Federal and State level.
It is attached as file 96-04.pdf.
I’ve also found an case that went to the US Supreme Court about a similar issue with a sign on private property. This one was anti-war.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/search/display.html?terms=gilleo&url=/supct/html/92-1856.ZO.html
I think it’s time American’s understood that government works for them, and there are certainly inalienable laws we are born with.
They are not ‘granted’, ‘given’ or ‘rewarded’ to us. We are born with them, and the Constitution provides that they cannot be violated.
There is no reason a city ordinance should be able to usurp the US Constitution, and I will fight this for as long as it takes for the code to be changed.
I'm looking for input, but please don't get too granular.
Hello,
I am emailing you today because I believe my Constitutional Right of Free Speech covered under the 1st Amendment is being violated by my local City Government in Hastings, MN.
I have never been politically active because I don’t care much for politicians in general to be blatantly honest.
Recently I have discovered one of the few politicians who is an honest, principled man, and he is running for President of the United States.
U.S. Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) of the 14th Congressional District is a huge proponent of protecting our civil liberties and is the only Anti-War Republican running for President. And while these are not the reasons I had begun researching him, I have learned a lot about how our liberties are manipulated and in some cases stripped away with little regard of the US Constitution. I have been so inspired by finding a honest politician that I have joined his grassroots effort to help get him elected.
Two months ago I placed a Ron Paul Campaign banner on my property in Hastings, MN. I purchased this item, and it was not given to me by the campaign.
A few days ago, I received a letter from City Hall stating that I must remove the banner by Monday, October 08, 2007, because it is in violation of a city ordinance, although the letter never specifically states which ordinance or what it violates.
I have decided that under numerous other incidents that provide precedence, I will NOT remove the banner as it is a violation of my 1st Amendment right of free speech to order it’s removal.
I have found several similar cases, including an almost identical case in Florida just recently.
http://www.dailycommercial.com/main.asp?SectionID=31&SubSectionID=162&ArticleID=21176
This gentleman was also told to remove his yard sign, and he also believed it was a violation of his rights.
He contacted the ACLU and they immediately took his case and sent his local code enforcement officer this letter (I have attached the story as file ACLUsep2007_web.pdf):
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION
FOUNDATION OF FLORIDA
CENTRAL REGION OFFICE
231 East Colonial Drive, Suite 150
Orlando, Florida 32801-1228
August 29, 2007
VIA FACSIMILE
Betty McMinamen
Code Enforcement Officer
City of Clermont
P.O. Box 120219
Clermont, FL 34712-0219
Re: August 23, 2007 Letter to Bryan J. and Leilani J. Orr
Dear Ms. McMinamen:
This letter is written on behalf of Bryan J. and Leilani J. Orr regarding your
August 23, 2007 letter demanding that they immediately cease and desist the placement
of a political sign on their property, purportedly in violation of the City of Clermont’s
ordinance requiring a political sign permit and payment of a $50.00 refundable fee. We
believe you have misapplied the ordinance and, to the extent you would apply it to the
Orrs, that it is plainly unconstitutional.
First, City Code § 102-18 provides that “The candidate whose sign is erected . . .
shall deposit with the city clerk” the required fee. The Orrs are not candidates so, by the
terms of the ordinance itself, they cannot be required to pay a fee. Moreover, if by
enforcing § 102-18 against the Orrs you are taking the position that they are prohibited
from posting signs on their property unless the candidate named on their sign pays the
fee, we believe such a position violates the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment
to the Constitution.
The law is clear that the display of political signs constitutes pure speech that is
protected by the First Amendment. Indeed, the Supreme Court has held that “the First
Amendment has its fullest and most urgent application to speech uttered during a
campaign for political office.” Eu v. San Francisco County Democratic Central
Committee, 489 U.S. 214, 223 (1989). Because the City of Clermont’s code specifically
singles out political signs as a category, it is a content-based restriction that must be
supported by a compelling governmental interest. Further, the means chosen to effect
such interests must be narrowly tailored to achieve that objective. See Boos v. Barry, 485
U.S. 312, 321 (1988).
PAGE 2
Letter to Ms. McMinamen
August 29, 2007
Page 2
The ACLU believes that the City’s restriction quite clearly cannot meet this
heavy, strict scrutiny burden. I call your attention to several cases from around the
country that have struck down various ordinances restricting the display of political signs:
Arlington County Republican Committee v. Arlington County, Virginia, 983 F.2d 587 (4th
Cir. 1993) (two sign limit unconstitutional even where the ordinance was content
neutral); Knoeffler v. Town of Mamakating, 87 F. Supp.2d 322 (S.D.N.Y. 2000)
(restriction of political lawn signs violated First Amendment); Curry v. Prince George’s
County, Maryland, 33 F. Supp.2d 447 (D. Md. 1999) (durational limit with respect to
political signs unconstitutional); Savago v. Village of New Paltz, 214 F.Supp.2d 252
(N.D.N.Y. 2002) (Village’s sign ordinance unconstitutional). See also Rappa v. New
Castle County, 18 F.3d 1043 (3rd Cir. 1994) (invalidating state statute regulating
placement of signs).
The United States Court of Appeals decision in Beaulieu v. City of Alabaster, 454
F.3d 1219, 1233 (11th Cir. 2006) is particularly relevant. That case involved a city
ordinance that imposed bureaucratic requirements on political signs that did not apply to
other signs. The court struck the ordinance as unconstitutional, holding that “[i]n sum,
under the sign ordinance it is easier, cheaper, and faster for Beaulieu to post a real estate
sign than a campaign sign. Because political signs are subject to more regulatory burden
than real estate signs, the sign ordinance discriminates against political speech in favor of
commercial speech.” Applying the City of Clermont’s ordinances to require the Orrs to
obtain a permit or pay a fee to post a political sign, while those same ordinances allow
them to post a real estate sign with no permission or requirement is precisely what the
Eleventh Circuit found unconstitutional in Beauliu.
Please confirm in writing faxed to the above number no later than 5:00 p.m. this
Friday that you will not take the enforcement action against the Orrs described in your
August 23, 2007 letter, and that they may post their political sign without the need for a
permit or the payment of any fee. If we do not receive such confirmation we are prepared
to challenge the ordinance in federal court.
Please contact me if you would like to discuss this matter further.
Sincerely,
Glenn M. Katon
cc: Bryan J. and Leilani J. Orr
James K. Hitt, Director of Planning
Daniel Mantzaris, City Attorney
For your reference, I have attached the city’s code enforcement document in a PDF format.
I have, also, found a legal opinion, from the State Attorney General in Hawaii, which stated a similar code to be unconstitutional, and unenforceable, both at the Federal and State level.
It is attached as file 96-04.pdf.
I’ve also found an case that went to the US Supreme Court about a similar issue with a sign on private property. This one was anti-war.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/search/display.html?terms=gilleo&url=/supct/html/92-1856.ZO.html
I think it’s time American’s understood that government works for them, and there are certainly inalienable laws we are born with.
They are not ‘granted’, ‘given’ or ‘rewarded’ to us. We are born with them, and the Constitution provides that they cannot be violated.
There is no reason a city ordinance should be able to usurp the US Constitution, and I will fight this for as long as it takes for the code to be changed.