|
Sl9 N.W.2d 243 Page 3
<br /> (Cite as: 519 N. W.2d 243, •245)
<br /> Educ. Assn v. Public Employment Relations Bd., trial court concluded the ordinance is content
<br /> 369 N.W.2d 527, 529 (Minn.t985). neutral.
<br /> The following framework is useful in determining A regulation that places a higher value on certain
<br /> whether an ordinance restricting time, place or topics of speech creates the danger of impermissible
<br /> manner of speech will survive constitutional content discrimination. See City Council of Los
<br /> scrutiny: Angeles v. Taxpayers for Vincent, 466 U.S. 789,
<br /> l.) Dces the challenged ordinance burden 816, 104 S.Ct. 2118, 2135, 80 L.Ed.2d 772
<br /> protected speech? (1984). Appellant argues thaz the ordinance is not
<br /> 2.) If so, does the ordinance contain contrnt-based content neutral because, as amended, it incorporates
<br /> restrictions or wntrnt-neutral restrictions? a preference for political signs over non-commercial
<br /> aJ If the restrictions arc content-based, are they opinion signs. Appellant bases her argumnt on the
<br /> necessary to serve a compelling government fact that the ordinance provides for additional signs
<br /> interest, and are they narrowly drawn to achieve during the political campaign season.
<br /> that end?
<br /> b.) If the restrictions aze wntrnt-neutral, do they [o support of her argument, appellant cites
<br /> serve any substantial government interest, are they Goward v. City of Minneapolis, 456 N.W.2d 460
<br /> narrowly tailored to further this interest, and do (Minn.App.1990). In Goward, the ordinance a[
<br /> they leave open ample alternative means for issue permitted campaign related signs on private
<br /> communicating the desired message? property but did not allow signs expressing an
<br /> See Simon & Schuster, Inc., v. New York Crime opinion critical of the city government. The
<br /> Victims Board, 502 U.S. 105, 112 S.Ct. 501, ordinance was content-based because it permitted
<br /> 508, I16 L.Ed.2d 476 (1991); Clark v. Community campaign signs while completely prohibiting
<br /> for Creative Non-violence, 468 U.S. 288, 293, 104 opinion signs. The ordinance was found to be
<br /> S.Ct. 3065, 3069, 82 L.Ed.Zd 221 (1984). unconstitutional because it plated a total ban on a
<br /> particular category of speech, namely, opinion
<br /> The parties agree the limitation on speech signs. Id. az 465. The facts of We Goward case are
<br /> contained in the ordinance is a burdrn on speech. not close to the facts of this case. The City of New
<br /> The parties also agree thaz the City's interest in Brighton not only does not totally ban anything, but
<br /> traffic safety, aesthetics, and retaining the residential carefully allows any opinion on any issue subject to
<br /> charaaer of its neighborhoods are 'substantial," but the same time frames as political speech.
<br /> not 'compelling' governmental interests.
<br /> Therefore, the issue is whether the ordinance is a The trial court concluded the ordinance does not
<br /> content-neutral regulazion and, if so, whether it "favor' political speech over opinion speech because
<br /> satisfies the requirements of narrow tailoring and it does not allow a greater number of campaign signs
<br /> adequate alternatives so as to be a valid time, place, than opinion signs. Both are treated idrntically at
<br /> and manner regulation. all times. The portion of the ordinance allowing
<br /> carnpaigo signs during campaign season, paragraph
<br /> Content-neutral. (cx8) of section 9-040, was amended to include the
<br /> following semrnce: 'Any sign permitted by this
<br /> [2](3] Tn determining whether a government paragraph may be used, in lieu of other uses
<br /> regulation is content-neutral, the government's permitted by this paragraph, as aNon-Commercial
<br />
<br /> purpose is the controlling consideration. Ward v. Opinion Sign.' Whey read as a whole, the
<br /> Rock Against Racism, 491 U.S. 781, 791, 109 ordinance, as amended, allows a resident to post one
<br /> S.Ct. 2746, 2754, 105 L.Ed.2d 661 (1989). A sign on his property, year round, whether it be an
<br /> regulation is content-neutral only if it is justified opinion sign or a campaign sign. During the
<br /> without reference to the content of the regulated political campaign season, a resident is allowed ro
<br /> speech. Id. az 791, 109 S.Ct. az 2754. The purpose post additional signs, up to one per balls issue and
<br /> portion of the ordinance states that it is based on candidate. The additional signs may be used to
<br /> concerns for public safety, order, cleanliness, express either a campaign message or an opinion
<br /> aesthetics, and administrative convenience. Because message. [FN2] Thu is, during the campaign
<br /> these concerns are not related •246 to contrnt, the season, a resident is not limited [o political speech
<br /> Copr. ° West 1996 No claim to orig. U.S. govt. works
<br />
<br />
|