GOP Runs Afoul of Local Anti-Graffiti Law - 1st Amendment No-No?

[mactastic]

A somewhat interesting debate has erupted in my local area over the 1st Amendment right to free speech versus the right of a city to prohibit the distribution of adhesive-backed materials for the purpose of the prevention of sticker graffiti.

Link (http://www.sanluisobispo.com/mld/sanluisobispotribune/9169944.htm)

SAN LUIS OBISPO - Bumper stickers have bumped the Republican Party from San Luis Obispo's Farmers Market and sparked a new debate locally over First Amendment rights.


The controversy stems from an incident at the July 8 market. GOP volunteers were handing out bumper stickers when they were asked to stop by a Downtown Association employee, party chairman Tom Bordonaro said.


The association, which runs the market, was enforcing a city ordinance that bans distribution of adhesive materials at the market. The City Council passed the law in response to complaints about sticker graffiti.


Members of the Republican Central Committee of San Luis Obispo County and the California Federation of Republican Women declined to stop, however. San Luis Obispo police were called to the scene to stand by while the groups were informed of the alleged violation, said Police Department spokesman Rob Bryn.


The next day, the association revoked the groups' permits to have booths at the market. On Wednesday, group officials came to the Thursday Night Promotions Committee meeting to ask that the permits be re-instated.


The women's group agreed to comply with the rules, so its permit was re-instated, said Deborah Cash, the association's administrator.


However, Republican Central Committee members say the rule violates their First Amendment right to free speech. Bordonaro said he plans to take the issue before the City Council at its next meeting and ask that the matter be placed on a future agenda for discussion.


"We're preparing to take this to the City Council and beyond because we're adamant that this is a First Amendment right," he said.


On Thursday, at least one member of the Republican Central Committee -- former state Assembly candidate Matt Kokkonen -- walked around by himself, handing out stickers. Kokkonen said his action was not prohibited by the city law.


This is the second summer in a row that the market has faced a free speech debate.


Last year, the Downtown Association tried to pull the permit for the Central Coast Peace and Environmental Council.


The group wanted to show a video and pictures depicting civilians killed in Iraq. Association representatives said the images were too graphic, but San Luis Obispo City Attorney Jonathan Lowell said the First Amendment protected their freedom of speech in the public setting.


Lowell was not available Thursday to discuss the latest issue.


Cash said the adhesive rule stems from many incidents of "sticker graffiti" in the mid-to-late 1990s. City public works crews were often scraping stickers from the downtown area, and noticed the problem was more apparent on Fridays.


The work crews requested the Downtown Association address the issue. The organization then recommended that the City Council prohibit the handing out of materials with adhesive backings. The council passed the rule around 2000. It's enforced by the promotions coordinator for the Downtown Association.


Bordonaro insisted the association is targeting political parties.


Cash disputed that idea, stating: "It's not political; we have worked with nonpolitical groups on this too."

So... is it unreasonable of a city to ban all adhesive-backed material from being freely distributed (note they aren't banning the SALE of stickers, just the free ones) in places where sticker graffiti has been an issue, or is it a violations of your free speech rights?

(And try for a moment to imagine this with the situation reversed if you are on the left, let's stay out of the politics of this matter for a bit. I know it will get there eventually, but I'm more interested in the infringment on 1st amendment rights issue than the fact that the GOP is upset.)

[saabmp3]

I don't see any problem with this. Just get the GOP to reprint on some non-adhesive materials. I HATE when I come out to my car and I have a bunch of "new" bumper stickers. I think this is a great law. It's not hurting free speech because the word isn't being banned, the medium is.

BEN

[zimv20]

the word isn't being banned, the medium is.

yeah, that's the important thing. they'd get in trouble if the message was on free dime bags, too, and i don't think that would be a first amendment issue.

though i understand the reason for the sticker ban, it does have an air of silliness to it.

i wonder if the groups thought about charging a penny for the stickers.

[IJ Reilly]

I don't much care for regulations like this. If acts of vandalism are being committed, it isn't by the people giving away the stickers, so the restriction itself seems misplaced. In any event, the crime being committed is so petty, I think the city should refrain from walking up to the First Amendment line in an effort to prevent it. On a practical level, not only are they unlikely to significantly reduce the vandalism, they're also likely to get sued one of these days -- and that will cost the city a whole lot more than scraping some bumper stickers from city property.

[Thanatoast]

Those darn neocon teens, always causing trouble! Just yesterday I saw some graffiti on a freeway soundwall that said "Bush Roolz" and another, "down wit da Dems". I think spray paint should also be banned, along with anything that could conceivably be used to tag anything, like magic markers and sharpies.

Just another instance of a zero-tolerance rule gone nuts. Like suspending kids from school for aspirin and taking away tweezers from old ladies at the airport. Rules like this were designed to replace common sense, which they can't, obviously. It also speaks highly of a society that has lost respect for its institutions (tagging) and its citizenry (we don't trust you with dangerous things like stickers). Just shows how far we've come in a hundred years.

[pooky]

I don't much care for regulations like this. If acts of vandalism are being committed, it isn't by the people giving away the stickers, so the restriction itself seems misplaced. In any event, the crime being committed is so petty, I think the city should refrain from walking up to the First Amendment line in an effort to prevent it. On a practical level, not only are they unlikely to significantly reduce the vandalism, they're also likely to get sued one of these days -- and that will cost the city a whole lot more than scraping some bumper stickers from city property.

Of course you're talking a city with a huge number of silly laws like this on the books. My favorite one is the law that prohibits drive-throughs in fast food restaurants, because they want to create a "family dining atmosphere." Like with the bumper sticker law, they fail to realize that the law they passed really has no power to effect the change they're looking for. It's what happens when you have a small town with a city council with not enough to do.

[IJ Reilly]

As I'm sure mactastic can also tell you, San Luis Obispo isn't exactly a "small town," even by California standards. I'd guess the population is around 100,000. It's a sophisticated, prosperous city, with a university, a county seat, and a population heavy on students and professors. I'd say from my frequent visits there, that they've got their issues pretty well under control. So what I think we're seeing here isn't so much creative thumb-twiddling by a bored city council, but an an effort to address the minutiae. Most cities don't have that luxury.

Anyway, I've seen this scenario many times before: What seems like a reasonable solution to a small problem spins out of control, and ends up costing more in dollars and lost opportunities then if they just left bad enough alone.