Nichols Town Sign Ordinance

Nichols Town Sign Ordinance

Statement to the Town Board of Nichols, NY by Barrie Gewanter on the proposed sign ordinance April 10, 2007 The New York Civil Liberties Union continues to be concerned that free speech is in trouble in the Town of Nichols. This Town Board seems bent on passing a version of this sign ordinance that runs afoul of the Constitution, and was rightly rejected by the County Planning Board in late March. As Town Board members you have an obligation to ensure that free speech is encouraged in this town. Instead you seem intent on taking steps that would restrain free speech. This is a mistake. The New York Civil Liberties Union is calling on the Nichols Town Board to revise this proposed sign ordinance to comply with constitutional protections for free speech. The Tioga County Planning Board issued its recommendation that Nichols revise this ordinance, in part, because the ordinance does not comply with constitutional guidelines. I would like to introduce a letter written by a staff attorney to the County Planning Board into the record of this meeting. No one in the United States should be required to ask a municipality for permission to express an opinion using a sign on their front lawn. Political messages conveyed in this way are, perhaps, the most unique and essential type of democratic activity. This has been recognized over and over again by the courts. Public officials cannot pass laws that “may work to inhibit or suppress this kind of communication.” Democracy can only remain vibrant when people have the ability to participate in and affect public debate. The ordinance you intend to vote on tonight would require residents to request and receive a permit from a town official before placing a political sign on their own lawn. This is an unconstitutional prior restraint on free speech. This ordinance effectively bans all political signage – unless and until the speaker obtains a permit – and leaves no similar avenue to reach an audience of neighbors and town members in an easy and economical way. Additionally, the current ordinance continues to draw improper content-based distinctions among different types of signage – temporary commercial signage would not require a permit; political speech would. This runs counter to traditional First Amendment protections for political speech by giving preferential treatment to commercial speech. A final note: In the course of the months in which this ordinance has been discussed and debated we have been surprised to learn of vandalism and serious threats aimed at intimidating opponents of this law. This is unacceptable. We therefore call on the Town Board to publicly denounce and condemn such tactics of intimidation, and take steps to assist the law enforcement personnel investigating these actions. The fact that an individual has received threats against his life and the security of his family impacts the ability of all town residents to engage in the kind of robust discussion and debate that is a hallmark of the freedoms assured by the First Amendment and the New York State Constitution. As town officials you have an obligation to take steps to counter this adverse impact on free speech in this town.

 
Statement to the Town Board of Nichols, New York by Barrie Gewanter January 24, 2006 The New York Civil Liberties Union has strong concerns about the sign ordinance currently proposed for the Town of Nichols. For several reasons, which I will briefly describe, we feel that the proposed ordinance violates the right to free speech protected by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and Article I Section 11 of the New York State Constitution. I have learned that Nichols is a town with a history of vibrant debate about proposals by town government, whether it be about a warehouse, a gas plant, a chicken farm, a racetrack or a partnership with an area college. This is in the best traditions of American democracy, which persists because of our people have the ability to participate in and affect public debates on municipal, political, social and other important issues of the day. In this country, Americans have the freedom to express their opinions in the public square and on their own property, even if others disagree. This may be one of the most important measures of a democracy, and until now, Nichols has been a place where this very American style of freedom was proudly and vibrantly on display as an example of democracy with a big “D”. You should be proud of this and not take steps that might suppress or restrain it. This ordinance attempts to impose restrictions on the freedom to place a sign on one’s own property. It proposes to have citizens seek permission before engaging in free speech by seeking a permit for any kind of sign, and it proposes to limit the amount of time someone can display a sign that is an expression of free speech. These limitations are simply not acceptable for all kinds of signs. The U.S. Supreme Court has allowed for the regulation of certain types of speech. A municipality can regulate business signs. A municipality can regulate the proximity of a sign to a street or building. A municipality may even regulate the size and placement of many kinds of signs. However, political signs, especially those placed on one’s private property, cannot be limited in these ways because political messages conveyed in this way are, perhaps, the most pure and essential type of democratic activity. A political sign placed at a reasonable location on one’s property conveys an individual message, but it does not get in another person’s way; it does not block traffic; it does not create a noise problem or litter; it cannot physically block another person on the street. Such a sign can be read, thought about, motivate a response, provide a topic for argument or simply be ignored. These yard or lawn signs are an easy, economical and clear form of communication available to all who wish to reach neighbors and others traveling in the town with a message or sentiment. The courts have repeatedly recognized that such political speech is both unique and pivotal in American democracy, and that public officials cannot pass laws that may work to inhibit or suppress this kind of communication, even if they don’t like the criticism that may be conveyed. If this is the intent of this law, it is misguided as well as unconstitutional because it runs counter to democratic ideals as well as court precedent. In America we don’t have to ask for government permission to exercise our constitutional right to free speech. That’s why the permit requirement for political signs is not acceptable. By “political” signs, I don’t only mean those signs that express support for a particular candidate for elected office. Americans can express a wide variety of messages that would constitute political speech. A sign that says “Bring Our Troops Home Now” or “Support the President” Or “Raise the Minimum Wage” or “Health Care for All” or “Support Your Local Gun Club” could all be seen as conveying messages with political content. You can’t put a time limit on these messages because they transcend political campaigns. They are not tied to a particular candidate or race, and may address social issues as well as political trends. Neither can you lump all these signs in with a category that includes the inevitable lawn signs approaching an election and then subject them to special restrictions. This ordinance singles out what is referred to as political signs and imposes a 30-day time limit on their display. However, a municipality cannot say that one kind of message is OK, while another more political message is to be limited. This is censorship based on content of the speech, and public officials are required to be content neutral when it comes to free speech. Government officials can’t give one kind of signage special privileges because it is about a day care center or a weekly church function while placing limits on another sign that supports a candidate, expresses an opinion about a contentious issue or criticizes government action. The courts have spoken again and again to strike down time restrictions on political signs, even those related to political campaigns. We’ve already cited the cases to you. It is not up to government officials to decide what is or is not a political sign. Government officials are also not supposed to put themselves in judgment of messages conveyed by signs of reasonable size and placement on someone’s private property such as a front lawn. If a “Support the Troops” sign would not be limited to 30 days, as one town official suggested, then neither should a sign that says “End the War – Bring The Troops Home.” Because its not up to town officials to decide which message is political in nature, or to designate one or more messages as too controversial. What would you do with two signs that said: “Keep Abortion Legal” AND “Respect Life – Consider Adoption”? Government officials can’t bring their personal opinions or value judgments into process of considering free speech. When it comes to respecting citizens’ rights to free speech, it really doesn’t matter which one is seen as appropriate or not by a town official. That is for the person placing the sign and the person reading it to decide. It is all free speech, and therefore it is simply not the government’s business to regulate. This Town Board is now at crossroads. You can go ahead and pass this ordinance, even though serious constitutional issues have been clearly laid out to you, and even though we have reminded you of no less than 15 well-known federal and state court cases from 1975 to 2000 that emphasize the inadmissibility of such restrictions and struck them down, and even though the NYCLU won a federal court case in the Northern District of New York that struck down a 30-day time on political signs in the Adirondack town of Essex last year, and even though we have provided you a copy of the judge’s order in the Essex case. Once you start to enforce this ordinance, someone may contact us to object to the government censorship represented by the restrictions you try to impose on their free speech. Then we will be back in Nichols with a legal problem for the town. This seems like it would be an unnecessary waste of taxpayer resources, and we have no desire to go in that direction. Instead, as my colleague, staff attorney Beth Haroules, suggested in her letter, we would be available to assist you or answer your questions So I urge you, instead, to alter the language in the proposed law to bring it within the bounds of the constitution, and preserve the proud tradition of vibrant public debate and big “D” democracy in this town.