I’m just not buying this decision. It is OK for a commercial entity to use an inflatable sign to draw attention to itself, but not a labor union or political organization waging a protest? That seems rather inconsistent, though the appellate court seems to think that’s value neutral.
All inflatable signs, other than grand opening signs, are prohibited. DeAngelo contends that the “Township has exhibited an explicit preference for commercial speech, i.e., inflatable grand opening signs, at the expense of all other inflatable signs.” However, a regulation is considered content-neutral so long as it does not differentiate between different speakers or messages.
Seems to me that an ordinance that would allow a car dealership to put up an inflatable elephant to announce its grand opening but does not allow a union to use a giant inflatable rat to protest against the use of non-union labor — or, to demonstrate the impact on the other side of the political aisle, an inflatable sign announcing a group’s opposition to abortion — “differentiate(s) between different speakers or messages.”
But that’s just me.
There’s more: The court essentially ruled that towns have a right to determine how messages can be disseminated. Handbills, fine. Conversations, check. The demonstration — even that’s OK.
But bring in a giant rat to draw attention to the protest — well that’s just not protected speech.
Maybe I’m missing something, but I just don’t get it.
South Brunswick Post, The Cranbury Press
The Blog of South Brunswick
E-mail me by clicking here.
Hank Kalet 