THE CASE OF THE POLITICALLY INCORRECT SIGN were putting isturbed by the number a
ID: 418921 • Letter: T
Question
THE CASE OF THE POLITICALLY INCORRECT SIGN were putting isturbed by the number and variety of signs that individuals up within its borders, a city council passed a law prohibiting all signs on private property except for advertising purposes in commercial areas. le Houston, a homeowner, pasted a sign on the front door of his house containing an American flag with these words underneath the flag: "Down with City Council-Our rights are being violated." Houston was arrested for violating the law The Trial During the trial, a city representative described how many signs had appeared on homes and on lawns, ruining the appearance of the city. He explained that many other cities and villages had experienced the same problems and that the ordinance was reasonable and the only way to solve the problem. Houston testified that the sign he had put up was a small one and that other city residents had raised flags on national holidays and put up signs showing their patriotism; none of those persons had been arrested. The Arguments at Trial The city's attorney argued that a city had the authority to regulate signs within its bor ders to protect the appearance and value of properties. She argued further that the law did not unduly restrict free speech as there were other ways for residents to express their views: radio, television, and the newspapers. Houston's attorney argued that the regulation violated the freedom of speech provisions of state and federal constititions, was too broad, too vague, and was unreasonable. He argued that the city could have limited the law by restricting signs over a certain size and in certain locations. He further argued that it was unreasonable to restrict the expression of opinions except for use of the media Questions to Discussion 1. Who has the stronger arguments, the city or Houston? Why? 2. Do you need any additional information to determine the facts? 3. If you were the judge or jury hearing this case, for whom would you decide? Why? 4. What type of legislation, if any, do you think should be enacted to limit signs in neighborhoods to protect their appearance?Explanation / Answer
1. The city have stronger arguments in this case. Constitution and law never says that public do not have a right to raise avainst local or national governments. People express their view without going any security issues, in this case, most of the people signed at their properties by expressing their feelings. These are not any kind of public gatherings, public meetings against government issues, or not any kind of promos against government.
2. Yes, in these kind of cases, we definitely need the previous cases and the judgements given by the law. These judgements help us to defend ourself (common public) and raise few more points.
3. if i were the jury, I support the statement of public, the reason is our constitution is given a right of freedom of speech, and here these sayings are not damaging any others intentionally. Particularly, public can raise their voice against the polocies planned and implementing by central or local governments. There is nothing wrong in this, it is the right given by our law and constitution.
4. these kind of issues must be settled with clear instructions from the law board. because, if every one do the same, the total system is going to be strugled. The issue is not about the size of sign or the place of sign, it is about the topic or issue.
Related Questions
Navigate
Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.