Thursday, December 21, 2006

Free Speech For Sale in Glendale

I was following a thread of blog links and wound up at American's for Limited Government's blog, "You Can't Make This Up" where I found a story that I hadn't heard about in my own backyard...

USA Today:
GLENDALE, Ohio — The town of Glendale didn't like the "for sale" sign Chris Pagan propped up on the 1970 Mercury Cougar in front of his house three years ago.
Glendale police threatened to cite him under an ordinance forbidding such signs on vehicles in public areas. He could have been jailed 30 days and been fined $250.

Pagan, a lawyer, took down the sign. He also filed a lawsuit in federal court.

Pagan's case will be heard today by all 14 judges of the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. A three-judge panel of the 6th Circuit previously ruled in Glendale's favor.

"Glendale was seeking to … subject me to jail time — and they can't do that when they're violating the First Amendment," Pagan said.
The article is dated 12/6/06, but I have been unable to get any kind of update on how the case went.

Cincinnati Enquirer:
Chris and Glendale have fought all the way to the full 6th Circuit because the U.S. Supreme Court has never really spelled out clear standards about how much the First Amendment protects “commercial” speech. This lack of clarity has given nosy bureaucrats across the country a license to censor ordinary speech for all sorts of reasons, and often for reasons that have nothing to do with commerce or consumer protection.

In Redmond, Wash., for example, the city clamped down on bagel shop owner Dennis Ballen because he hired someone to carry a sign pointing customers to his out-of-the way location. Such signs were banned for all but politicians and influential industries like real estate. Like Chris is doing now, Dennis fought for years in the federal courts until at last the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals struck down Redmond’s ordinance as unconstitutional this past September.

But Mesa, Ariz., donut entrepreneur Edward Salib was not so lucky. He took his fight to the state courts and lost when the city told him to take down posters in his shop window advertising breakfast treats. The City said the signs obscured the ability of the police to look in, even though Edward could legally have replaced his window with a wall. Nevertheless, the courts sided with the city.

Edward lost and Dennis won because “commercial” speech law is so vague that it can mean different things to different courts. This brings us back to Chris and the importance of having all 14 judges of the 6th Circuit decide once and for all how much the First Amendment protects important commercial ideas like “my car is for sale.”

Chris’ case presents the court with a particularly vivid example of how ridiculous bureaucratic censors can be. Believe it or not, Glendale bans car “for sale” signs because the city thinks that people cannot be trusted to look at a car without foolishly wandering into traffic, so it prohibits the best way to advertise that a car is for sale.

But, as Chris has been arguing for years, the First Amendment should not permit governments to censor everyday speech about ordinary things just because they think, unbelievably, that their citizens cannot deal with simple ideas like “this car – or bagel or donut – is for sale.” Indeed, the U.S. Supreme Court has said in similar cases that the First Amendment does not allow this kind of silly paternalism.
Chris Pagan is fighting the epidemic of petty censorship that disdains commercial speech and citizens’ intelligence. His way is the American way, and we hope the full Court of Appeals agrees.
This is a perfect example of how government is interfering in our daily lives. How much more of this sort of thing will Ohioans endure now that Ted Strickland has won the governorship? Here's hoping that the Republican controlled legislature and Supreme Court can keep this sort of nonsense to a minimum...

But this a federal case, and you can never quite tell how those are going to turn out... I'd be amazed if this goes all the way to the US Supreme Court, but the issue is certainly important enough for them.