4.4. SR 11-13-2001 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: RE: DATE: Peter Beck Charles Wilsdn Selective Removal of Authorized Signs in the City Right-of-Way July 23, 2001' The City will probably not be able to selectively remove signs in its right-of-way based on content. The Supreme Court has established a "reasonable fit" standard which is applied to the regulation of commercial speech. The primary case setting forth this standard is Board of Trustees of State University of N.Y.v. Fox, 492 U.S. 469, 109 S. Ct. 3028, 106 L. Ed. 2d 388. Under the "reasonable fit" standard, the City would have the burden of showing a reasonable fit between its legitimate interests in safety and aesthetics and the means it chooses to serve those interests. In a 1993 case, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected an attempt by the City of Cincinnati to remove free-standing news racks on public property that contained commercial handbills while permitting others,containing newspapers, to remain. See City of Cincinnati v. Discovery Network, Inc., 507 U.S. 410, 113 S. Ct. 1505, 123 L. Ed. 2d 99. In the City of Cincinnati case, the Supreme Court rejected several arguments by the City that its regulation of news racks was protected because of the lower standard applied to commercial speech. The Supreme Court found that the City had not met its burden of establishing a "reasonable fit" between its legitimate interests in safety and aesthetics and the means it chose to service those interests. The fact that the City failed to address its recently developed concern about news racks by regulating their size, shape, appearance, or number indicated that it had not "carefully calculated" the costs and benefits associated with the burden on speech imposed by its prohibition. One significant factor was that the overwhelming majority of free-standing news racks in Cincinnati were those containing newspapers and not commercial handbills. Thus, the removal of those containing commercial handbills did not significantly impact the City's interests in safety or aesthetics. The Court rejected the City's argument that every decrease in the overall number of news racks on its sidewalks necessarily reflected an increase in safety and an improvement in the attractiveness of the cityscape. In addition, the Court indicated that the City's argument seriously underestimated the value of commercial speech. The Court further found that because the City's regulation of news racks was predicated on the difference in content between ordinary newspapers and commercial speech, it was not