Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

starhoppers t1_j83t2kf wrote

The thing is, maybe that ordinance is in place so the town doesn’t have to deal with unsightly billboards or large signs. If they let him keep it, it won’t be long before another business tries to erect a large sign (that may not be as tasteful as the donut mural). Having come from a place that has ugly signs everywhere (Georgia), I can understand why the city wants to fight this.

19

MaineLooth t1_j83u1n0 wrote

Totally- I think many people in the town feel that this is not actually a sign, you can’t even see it if you’re driving from the south, it doesn’t say anything…just some cool paintings of donuts. And it’s not a billboard really either, it’s part of their building.

19

starhoppers t1_j83ucgn wrote

Oh, I totally understand. But, once you allow it and open that door, I think others will take advantage and erect their own, perhaps uglier, signage.

7

cwalton505 t1_j83um5u wrote

Exactly. The ordinance can be tweaked to allow it and keep giant billboards at bay, but as it's written you're right. Everyone here is flipping out about it being unjust, but it is in violation and the town can't just ignore it now. They should look at the laws they have on the books and see how they want to adjust it.

If this was a business people didn't like, they'd be slamming the business rather than the town ordinance. It's weird.

10

sje46 t1_j84dnfg wrote

I can understand how if the law is repealed, it could have unwanted consequences. But...is Conway really at risk of that? Billboards are pretty uncommon in NH as it is. I can't see people putting up billboards in the middle of nowhere.

And regardless of negative consequences anyway, I also don't see how it isn't a violation of the first amendment to make a law against putting up any sort of advertisement on land you own. Doesn't matter if it's a charming donut shop sign or ugly billboard for a strip club.

6

cwalton505 t1_j84unqf wrote

They're not at risk and they can completely alter the wording however they want. But that's the process, rewrite the law if you want it changed

4

sje46 t1_j84wzb0 wrote

Sure but does it not count as a first amendment violation?

1

cwalton505 t1_j8510ds wrote

I don't think that advertising for ones business is covered under the free speech amendment. There are sign laws everywhere, and if sign laws were a violation we would have seen it in the supreme court by now.

2

sje46 t1_j8520d1 wrote

The linked article references many such cases, although I don't think they went to the Supreme Court. The fact that these cases didn't go to the supreme court, if anything, indicates that these laws were clearly unconstitutional and therefore didn't need to go that far.

Anyways, the supreme court has addressed freedom of speech laws as relates to billboards, such as this example last year. That case is not relevant to this case, ofc, since this bakery sign is not digital. Also, I'm not a constituional lawyer. I'm just asking questions about this because I'm genuinely curious.

2

cat-gun t1_j8528wp wrote

Lot's of laws existed for decades before they were struck down as unconstitutional. What really matters is whether there is a culture of liberty, where people respect the free speech of others. I want to live in a state with a culture of liberty.

−1

g_rich t1_j88vtxv wrote

So the solution here is they should have granted him the variance and then taken up IJ’s offer to button up the current law so it doesn’t become a free for all with signs littering the Whites which I think we can all agree is the original intent of the law and one we could all support.

1

TurretLauncher t1_j851guh wrote

Avert your eyes then. Freedom does include people saying things you may not like.

−2

starhoppers t1_j855snk wrote

If the people Conway don’t want the eyesores of big signs, they have every right to put that in zoning laws. It’s called democracy! Enjoying your Freedom responsibly doesn’t mean doing anything you want to do and the hell with everyone else.

0

TurretLauncher t1_j858959 wrote

That's called majoritarianism, and it's exactly what the Bill of Rights was meant to prevent:

> The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One’s right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.

US Supreme Court, in West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette (1943)

2