Quote:
Originally Posted by BrianL99
I don't need to do that. I deal with this stuff for a living and have a very good understanding of how it works.
Unlike many on this thread, i don't have to run to Google and decide what my opinion or position is.
You apparently have little or no experience with real estate property rights, because your conclusion is dead wrong. I can sell a parcel of land, with a restriction that "No Billboards" be erected. What I can't do, is sell a parcel of land and prohibit only billboards that attack LBGQT folks. Sometimes you don't have to run to AI to get a Constitutional question answered, one can sometimes rely on simply common sense.
Also, if you're going to quote the Supreme Court's decision in Reed, you perhaps should read it again. The Decision says that signs absolutely can be regulated by government, provided regulations are "content neutral". The Decision says sign regulations cannot be based on message or subject (content).
|
The ruling says that blanket restrictions against signs are unconstitutional. Content neutral is only part of the ruling. Also says no random arbitrary restrictions are allowed. Your example would not float.
It shows that you "don't need to read the decision" yet are pontificating it incorrectly. I guess you know it all and there is no reasoning possible because you continue to advocate an opinion that is contradicted in the actual examples SCOTUS published.