City of Auburn vs. the First Amendment?

[Mike_Walter]

At last night's Auburn City Council meeting, Council Member Marilyn Gearhart announced that the Auburn Plan Commission is creating a special committee to study possible revisions to Auburn's sign ordinance. Among the possible revisions that the committee is supposed to study are changes relating to regulating content. Content? There are obviously a number of problems with the sign ordinance (or with the way it's enforced), but I haven't heard of any that relate to the absence of content regulation. When I asked Gearhart what sort of content restrictions might be looked at, she said that they would relate to profanity and sexual imagery. Hey, campers, have you seen anything like that on local signs? Too many signs with words that rhyme with "duck?" Too many neon bar signs with the outline of a shapely female form that just might -- might -- be interpreted as unclothed? Do we have trouble here in River City, or might we just be asking for trouble from people who think that the First Amendment applies here as well as in the rest of the U.S.A.?

[LuciusBeebe]

might we just be asking for trouble from people who think that the First Amendment applies here as well as in the rest of the U.S.A.?

No.

People know and accept that there are certain restrictions to the first amendment. I can't put up a billboard with X-rated content, for example.

[michael medeski]

I can't put up a billboard with X-rated content, for example.

or one with a picture of muhammad.

[matt_s]

Aren't these issues already covered by other rules in existence or is this simply an attempt to apply these thoughts specifically to signs instead of enforcing an existing rule?

[armyda]

or one with a picture of muhammad.

This is off the subject, but I thought the thread name was a good place to ask this question.

Michael,

You have the signature line on your posts that states: "I do not support this ad". Those ads provide financial support for this forum site. They pay for the hosting of this forum, which allows you to post your thoughts and ideas. If you are opposed to what pays for this site, why are you not opposed to the site? Your continuing use of the site would seem to be in conflict with the financial means that provides it. Perhaps you could clarify.

[hairypumper]

Is this the same Marilyn Gearhart who said we shouldn't have a problem with random police searches as long as we're not doing anything wrong?

[michael medeski]

If you are opposed to what pays for this site, why are you not opposed to the site?

i am opposed to the site putting ads in my posts. i don't care if they are on the site elsewhere. maybe i don't like toro snow blowers and/or mutton power equipment, maybe i don't like star bank. am i required to like and support those things just because KPC needs the money?

perhaps you could clarify why it bothers you so much. are you paying for advertisement? are you opposed to freedom of speech? maybe i'll just change it to "KPC sucks".

[Chiguy65]

Is this the same Marilyn Gearhart who said we shouldn't have a problem with random police searches as longwe're not doing anything wrong?

I can't see why Ms. Gearhart is even still on the council, people that think Mr. Walter is a wack job, haven't heard the B.S. that comes out of this woman mouth.

[AMSTERDAM]

While I am sure that Mrs. Gearhart cares for our community, I feel like she wants to govern Auburn to death. Her puritanical attitude is just too much for me and others that have dealt with her point of view in the past. Aren't there bigger fish to fry, bigger issues for our council members to deal with than pornographic garage sale signs? I mean REALLY, I havent seen even one profane sign or one with sexual imagery around here ever. "Special Committees" of this sort are for people who like to nit pick and feel important. What a waste of time.

[Mike_Walter]

People know and accept that there are certain restrictions to the first amendment. I can't put up a billboard with X-rated content, for example.

How has Auburn managed all these years without content restrictions?*

*Note: The ban on off-premises commercial signs might be considered a form of content restriction on commercial speech; but the courts have consistently held that commercial speech has less constitutional protection than speech that expresses opinion.

[john40]

I can't see why Ms. Gearhart is even still on the council, people that think Mr. Walter is a wack job, haven't heard the B.S. that comes out of this woman mouth.

You are so correct.

[john40]

i am opposed to the site putting ads in my posts. i don't care if they are on the site elsewhere. maybe i don't like toro snow blowers and/or mutton power equipment, maybe i don't like star bank. am i required to like and support those things just because KPC needs the money?

perhaps you could clarify why it bothers you so much. are you paying for advertisement? are you opposed to freedom of speech? maybe i'll just change it to \"KPC sucks\".

Now now Michael behave I just got a notice for saying basicly the same thing about free ads posted by some people on the post.

[nathandiehl]

Now now Michael behave I just got a notice for saying basicly the same thing about free ads posted by some people on the post.

There are ad blockers.
If you don't want to see the ads, install the ad blockers.

Feel free to PM me if you would like some pointers to go ad-free on the Web.

[LuciusBeebe]

How has Auburn managed all these years without content restrictions?*

I was replying to your question about the First Amendment. People won't care, with regard to the first amendment, because we all know that you can't show in public whatever you like.

[HoosierHelen]

How has Auburn managed all these years without content restrictions?*

*Note: The ban on off-premises commercial signs might be considered a form of content restriction on commercial speech; but the courts have consistently held that commercial speech has less constitutional protection than speech that expresses opinion.

I see absolutely no need for further restrictions covering content on signage in Auburn. I suggest Mrs. Gearheart relax her need for further restrictions and focus on enforcement of current regulations.

[Copycatted]

I was replying to your question about the First Amendment. People won't care, with regard to the first amendment, because we all know that you can't show in public whatever you like.

Not really a question but isn't that because most think that the First Amendment is the freedom of the press?

[CosmicKid]

It sounds like someone is indirectly trying to "take care" of a signage issue. They may state that they are going after only offensive "content", but it sounds like they are trying to open the door for a broad range of "offenses". I for one have never seen an offensive sign in Auburn. I would hope that the community would "take care" of that type of problem (ie. if it were a business I would march into the establishment and tell them directly that they will never see a dime of my money...etc). Maybe they like my idea of charging garage salers for "sign permits".... i still think that would take care of all of the potential issues regarding any type of temporary signs in Auburn.