Sign, sign, everywhere a sign

Passions are running high this political season. The presidential campaign has inspired a large population of previously apathetic and disinterested voters to express themselves. Good. A healthy democracy depends upon an engaged citizenry.

That’s why it’s discouraging that efforts to limit political speech continue to flourish in pockets throughout the country.

Take Plattsburg, Mo., a town of about 2,300 residents located 38 miles north of Kansas City. While residents of the burg can post basic election signs or real estate signs on their own property, city leaders have told them that they may not display political protest signs — or other types of political-issue signs.

The decision is in response to residents who used lawn signs to express their opposition to a proposed wind turbine project in the county — signs that Plattsburg City Administrator Joe Trotter says fail to qualify as permissible under city zoning ordinances. Residents posting “illegal” signs will first receive a warning, followed by a notice of violation, and finally a citation.

Mr. Trotter said he doesn’t want to create a precedent that would force the Plattsburg City Council to decide which individual issues or signs can be permitted beyond those in the regulations. “We can’t pick and choose,” he says. “I think the big thing is, where do we draw the line?”

Perhaps Mr. Trotter and his Plattsburg cohorts aren’t aware that a line has already been drawn. “This is an absolute violation of the First Amendment,” said Erica Smith, an attorney with the Institute for Justice, a public-interest law firm challenging the restrictions. “Political protest signs are core political speech. What’s more is that these sign restrictions discriminate based on content — completely contrary to clear Supreme Court precedent.”

As the Institute recently outlined on its website, last summer, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a “content-based” sign code for restricting some signs based purely on the subject matter. The court was clear: Such prohibitions are unconstitutional under the First Amendment.

Yet the preservation of free expression demands eternal vigilance. Despite the Supreme Court’s ruling, local governments continue to implement codes that — as the Institute describes it — not only “impose different restrictions on the size and placement of signs based on what those signs say” but force residents to ask for permission to exercise their constitutional rights.

This is unacceptable. The Institute for Justice provides an invaluable public service by shining a light on this type of nonsense. The answer to unpopular speech is more speech, not less. If you don’t like somebody’s else’s sign, make your own.