[Vision2020] Info Regarding Political Signs

[B. J. Swanson]

Somehow, the Obama sign on Hayes and the Paul sign on Sixth Street didn't 
offend me at all.  They were within legal size limits and were well 
maintained. 

Compare those signs with the two junk cars that have been rusting away on 
the south side of the building near the Latah Eagle.  They've been there 
for years and are sinking into the dirt.  This may be freedom of 
expression or private property rights, but it's pretty disgusting.  
Compare the issues here:  Junk cars vs. political signs.  Both on private 
property but one is illegal.  

If there has to be an ordinance against political signs on private 
property, can there also be an ordinance against junk cars?

B. J. Swanson

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

Don,
The mere fact that there is a law on the books that restricts a freedom 
guaranteed by the Constitution damages us all. It trivializes our First 
Amendment guarantee, on private property no less.
Title 7, Chapter 6, Section 6-4 of the city code states it is misdemeanor 
to 
violate the sign law, in essence making political speech a crime.
In addition, the ordinance apparently allows for confiscation of property 
without due process.
I can do without the threat of warrantless search and seizure and a 
government that tells me when I can, or can't, express my opinion. It 
doesn't matter whether it is at the local, state or federal level.


--------------------------------------------------
From: "Don Coombs" <mushroom at moscow.com>
Sent: Monday, July 21, 2008 1:33 PM
To: "v2020" <vision2020 at moscow.com>
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Info Regarding Political Signs

>
>
> Sue Hovey wrote:
>> I understand there have to be some limits to the size of a sign and
>> placement restrictions, and I believe court decisions have indicated
>> those restrictions to be legal, but help me understand why there are ANY
>> limits to the number of days during which a sign may be displayed.  I
>> think this prohibition needs to be reconsidered.
>>
>> Dan Carscallen, are you reading this?  If so, I think someone on the
>> council needs to take a look for surely it is a violation of a
>> person's First Amendment rights to set a time line on freedom of
>> speech.
>>
>> Are there others out there who might be willing to work to get this
>> timeline prohibition changed?  I am planning to post a yard sign which
>> reads, "Support our Troops--Vote Democrat."  I suppose that means I
>> can't legally place it in my yard until early September.
>>
>
> I have no doubt this restriction is a violation of the
> First Amendment.
>
> I'm also sure that most of us on the V2020 list have
> many better things to do than try to change the
> ordinance. That's because no one is put at any
> disadvantage or damaged in any way, even emotionally,
> by the ordinance.
>
> If people want to campaign to change the ordinance, I
> hope that after they succeed everyone will still abide
> by it. They will still abide by the restrictions
> because of simple neighborliness; limited tenure for
> political posters makes our city a more attactive place.
>
> If I were a candidate I would want to abide by the
> restrictions for that same reason, and because the
> voters would appreciate that demonstration of
> neighborliness.
>
> Don Coombs
>


---------------------------------------------
This message was sent by First Step Internet.
           http://www.fsr.com/