“Judge Engelhardt said the city can enforce noncommercial restrictions [on banners, signs and flags] only in an area around the Superdome.”
Why can the city enforce restrictions on noncommercial banners, signs and flags ANYWHERE???
By emjaycee on 2013 01 26, 6:00 am CST
Hard to say why the city can enforce such restrictions. I don’t see a link to the ruling which might explain it.
My recollection of the french quarter is that there are all sorts of people, some with signs, in the streets during the evenings. Many of these streets are closed in order to accommodate the pedestrian traffic and the sign bearers.
Indeed, some of the sign bearers are commercial; at least one will even rent you the use of his sign for purposes of photography. The wife has a picture of us holding such a rented sign advocating. Of course when we were holding the sign, we were not so much promoting commerce as obtaining a souvenir of the visit, so I guess we were not engaging in commercial advocacy.
Barring noncommercial signage would be even more dificult than barring commercial signs. The most difficult might be a sign denouncing the improper deal between the city and the football folks providing for requirements of at least 60% NFL branding, though allowing the NFL to approve or disapprove signage could also present some problems.
By andrews on 2013 01 27, 3:42 pm CST
We welcome your comments, but please adhere to our comment policy.
© 2013 ABA Journal and the American Bar Association | ABA Home
Questions, comments, or concerns? Contact us
Visit our desktop site