Doing an argumentative paper on free speech and came across this article.

[quote]Ohio couple fight to display large Bush-Cheney sign

By The Associated Press
10.17.04

HUDSON, Ohio — The right of a Republican activist and his wife to put a big campaign sign for Bush-Cheney outside of their home will be debated in court.

The American Civil Liberties Union is taking up the case for Summit County GOP Chairman Alex Arshinkoff and his wife Karen, who want the 4-by-8-foot sign to remain, even though this northeast Ohio town has an ordinance that limits any resident’s political signs to a total of eight square feet. The Arshinkoffs’ sign is 32 square feet.

The city about 20 miles southeast of Cleveland has fined Arshinkoff’s wife, who is the owner of the property, $75 per day since Oct. 1, and the city filed a minor misdemeanor charge against her alleging a zoning violation.

Jody Roberts, communications manager for Hudson, said the city is merely enforcing an ordinance that is designed to maintain a tidy appearance. She said the city has received many complaints from residents about the Arshinkoffs’ sign.

Alex Arshinkoff contends the local regulation is a violation of his First Amendment right to free speech. Karen Arshinkoff contacted the ACLU about the case.

A political conservative, Alex Arshinkoff acknowledged that he doesn’t usually agree with the ACLU.

“They’re very liberal. I only agree with them 5 percent of the time,

Obnoxious. These people should be embarassed. I don't see a free-speech issue at all.

Accroding to their logic they should also be able to put up a 100sf sign with explicit porno on it. After all its free speech. :D

I dont understand some people. There are ordinances and laws set by communities all the time to benefit ALL. Not just just your personal vanity.

There is a suburb of Memphis that says you can only have a sign 6 feet off the ground. Thus, if you have an 8 foot one, is that a violation of free speech?

[quote="Cajunman02"] Doing an argumentative paper on free speech and came across this article.

[quote]Ohio couple fight to display large Bush-Cheney sign

By The Associated Press
10.17.04

HUDSON, Ohio — The right of a Republican activist and his wife to put a big campaign sign for Bush-Cheney outside of their home will be debated in court.

The American Civil Liberties Union is taking up the case for Summit County GOP Chairman Alex Arshinkoff and his wife Karen, who want the 4-by-8-foot sign to remain, even though this northeast Ohio town has an ordinance that limits any resident’s political signs to a total of eight square feet. The Arshinkoffs’ sign is 32 square feet.

The city about 20 miles southeast of Cleveland has fined Arshinkoff’s wife, who is the owner of the property, $75 per day since Oct. 1, and the city filed a minor misdemeanor charge against her alleging a zoning violation.

Jody Roberts, communications manager for Hudson, said the city is merely enforcing an ordinance that is designed to maintain a tidy appearance. She said the city has received many complaints from residents about the Arshinkoffs’ sign.

Alex Arshinkoff contends the local regulation is a violation of his First Amendment right to free speech. Karen Arshinkoff contacted the ACLU about the case.

A political conservative, Alex Arshinkoff acknowledged that he doesn’t usually agree with the ACLU.

“They’re very liberal. I only agree with them 5 percent of the time,

Without looking things up, as I recall from my Constitutional Law classes, restrictions on content neutral speech must 1) advance a significant governmental interest, 2) be justified without reference to the content of the speech and 3) leave open ample alternative avenues for expression. Restrictions on the content of speech have to 1) advance a compelling governmental interest and 2) be the least restrictive alternative. This ordinance is not content neutral as it restricts only political speech and political speech is given the highest level of protection we give to speech. Remember, we can't even ban flag burning (rightly so I might add).

Second, restricting the ability of a person to advocate on their own property treads even more heavily on the First Amendment absent some kind of safety issue. My uneducated guess is that this ordinance won't withstand judicial scrutiny.

Personal tirade. Speech that says, "I want good roads and good schools" does not need protection from governmental intrusion. You could have gotten by with that kind of speech in Iran. It is the speech that offends that needs that protection. It is the KKK member that says, "let's send all the ******* back to Africa" that needs the protection of the First Amendment. It is the Communist Party member that says, "we should abolish private property" that needs the protection of the First Amendment. It is the anarchist that burns the American flag to show his disdain for all American values that needs the protection of the First Amendment.

We're not talking about pornography here. We're talking about the ability of a citizen to use his own property to advocate his political viewpoint.

I agree with Mako. I do not see any case where a government can't prohibit free speech on a person's own property if it isn't vulgar. I can only see a case when someone signs a covenant when they move into a neighborhood and join their association, due to the appreciation/depreciation of property values.

RebelKev Wrote:I agree with Mako. I do not see any case where a government can't prohibit free speech on a person's own property if it isn't vulgar. I can only see a case when someone signs a covenant when they move into a neighborhood and join their association, due to the appreciation/depreciation of property values.

And gov't cannot enforce restrictive covenants. Again, if someone came to me with this complaint, I'd shrug and cite the First Amendment.

As to vulgar: as an exercise, try to find the legal definition of vulgar/offensive language. Maybe I'm not looking in the right places, but I've never found a decent definition.

This is a much more interesting story about Arshinkoff.

<a href='http://www.clevescene.com/issues/2003-06-11/feature.html' target='_blank'>http://www.clevescene.com/issues/2003-06-1...11/feature.html</a>

Maybe John Kerry should mentioned him insted of the Cheney's daughter.