I am a strong defender of free speech. That being said, this was an interesting case and one that seemed to need a judge to weigh the arguments. It wasn't a slam-dunk.
We all agree that a town has to have the right to regulate signage, otherwise everyone would have a billboard for rent on their commercial property. And we all agree that "art murals" should not be regulated. If someone wants to paint their wall with a giant mural (or say the color pink) they have that right.
In this case, we have a problem. Can a business have a mural that doesn't mention their name but has their products? The court has ruled that that is allowed. That helps clarify things.
What if the mural had the word "bakery" or "Leavitt's" on it? Is it a commercial sign only when it uses words to identify the particular business name or type? Perhaps that is what the bottom line is.
So I think this was an interesting case and we have all learned from it. Unlike trying to restrict property owner's rights by regulated lawful rentals, this one did need a judge to decide and I don't think it is an example of town overreach. That being said, the leadership could have acknowledged that Leavitt's ended up being correct and I hope they cover the legal expenses for the property owner who was defending his right to free speech. And perhaps the town in future disputes can try harder to resolve things before using the heavy-hand of enforcement.
Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd,
racist or sexually-oriented language. PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK. Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another
person will not be tolerated. Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone
or anything. Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism
that is degrading to another person. Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on
each comment to let us know of abusive posts. Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness
accounts, the history behind an article.
(1) comment
I am a strong defender of free speech. That being said, this was an interesting case and one that seemed to need a judge to weigh the arguments. It wasn't a slam-dunk.
We all agree that a town has to have the right to regulate signage, otherwise everyone would have a billboard for rent on their commercial property. And we all agree that "art murals" should not be regulated. If someone wants to paint their wall with a giant mural (or say the color pink) they have that right.
In this case, we have a problem. Can a business have a mural that doesn't mention their name but has their products? The court has ruled that that is allowed. That helps clarify things.
What if the mural had the word "bakery" or "Leavitt's" on it? Is it a commercial sign only when it uses words to identify the particular business name or type? Perhaps that is what the bottom line is.
So I think this was an interesting case and we have all learned from it. Unlike trying to restrict property owner's rights by regulated lawful rentals, this one did need a judge to decide and I don't think it is an example of town overreach. That being said, the leadership could have acknowledged that Leavitt's ended up being correct and I hope they cover the legal expenses for the property owner who was defending his right to free speech. And perhaps the town in future disputes can try harder to resolve things before using the heavy-hand of enforcement.
Welcome to the discussion.
Log In
Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.