Mobile Billboard Ban Under Consideration

[Don]

It is per se unconstitutional. Ayatolla's sign is not commercial speech, but pure political speech.

[Ayatollahgondola]

Originally Posted by Don

It is per se unconstitutional. Ayatolla's sign is not commercial speech, but pure political speech.

I don't see any exception for that in this bill. And you notice it will be an infraction? No jury trial.....maybe no trial at all like they do with parking violations

[Don]

relating to mobile billboard advertising displays .

any mobile billboard advertising

(a) No person shall park a mobile billboard advertising
display in a public place within a city or county, other than a
parking lot or parking garage.
(b) For purposes of this chapter, "[I]mobile billboard advertising
display"[/I] means any advertising display that is attached to a wheeled
conveyance, or is otherwise mobile, that carries, pulls, or
transports any sign or billboard for the primary purpose of
advertising.


The prohibition contained in subdivision (a) shall not apply
to a vehicle that displays an advertisement or identifies the
business of its owner, so long as the vehicle to which the
advertising display is attached is engaged in the usual business or
regular work of the owner and is not parked for the primary purpose
of advertising.


By its language the bill is limited to "advertising." This is commercial speech, not political speech.

[Ayatollahgondola]

Originally Posted by Don

relating to mobile billboard advertising displays .

any mobile billboard advertising

(a) No person shall park a mobile billboard advertising
display in a public place within a city or county, other than a
parking lot or parking garage.
(b) For purposes of this chapter, "[I]mobile billboard advertising
display"[/I] means any advertising display that is attached to a wheeled
conveyance, or is otherwise mobile, that carries, pulls, or
transports any sign or billboard for the primary purpose of
advertising.


The prohibition contained in subdivision (a) shall not apply
to a vehicle that displays an advertisement or identifies the
business of its owner, so long as the vehicle to which the
advertising display is attached is engaged in the usual business or
regular work of the owner and is not parked for the primary purpose
of advertising.


By its language the bill is limited to "advertising." This is commercial speech, not political speech.

I only see this as slightly better but not much. If the state can restrict what you say when you're parked, one of the few forms of advertising that the big boys don't control yet, then small business is beholden even more to the big boys. Take a look around. Who controls all the airwaves and advertisement now. This legislation is about knocking out another form of ads for small business.

[Dawes]

Sacramento is already getting ready to try and censor because they know the Dems are gonna get blasted by signs all over California during this election year. What's next? no bumper stickers.

[Ayatollahgondola]

So the governor signed this ban into law. I call it a ban, because it is written differently from what the intent was...as is usual when the legislature wants to pass something without drawiung the ire of affected people.

The law now empowers municipalities to outlaw sign trailers that when "advertisement" in their primary purpose. In addition, the law's chief proponent in the state legislature stated that it was aimed at unhitched trailers, but then went on to omit that portion from the code itself. This will, of course, allow the municipalities to broadly interpret it and let the victim fight their way out of it in court. What I'm unsure of is whether it will fall under the parking ticket scam or not. They also criminalized it if a muni elects to do so, meaning it can carry jail time if they charge it that way. I think we can thank a real ass for inspiring this too. the guy that Dennis Zine was aiming at took this form of advertising to the maximum level of provocation by placing multiple little trailers in a row on city streets, and just abandoning them there. To add to that, this guy is another one of those "businessmen" that is hell bent on using the court system to make up for his apparent inability to please his customers. He's got numerous lawsuits, as well as internet pages chock full of warnings from unsatisfied clients.
I hate having to be lumped in with the unadmirable, but I have to oppose this unjust law. The state and the munis are now doing the bidding of the big advertising lobby. The advertisers are cornering the outdoor market, and already dominate the airwaves and cable. What was left was public property, and for anyone paying attention, they have already connived their way into exclusive contracts for the outdoor advertising on schools, city, and county owned property.
I'd like to say that we were safe in doing first amendment events with this, but I fear that it will be another one of those situations that we will be ticketed and forced to pay fines while appeals work their way up to judges appointed by the same mentalities that brought and signed these laws into practice in the first place.

[ilbegone]

How about all those election campaign signs still tacked up everywhere?

Those are as obnoxious and blight contributing as anything else.

I have to agree that the "infraction" gimmick is way out of hand. The judge gets paid out of fines and assessments, and with no jury to hold him back the situation encourages him to be prosecutor as well. Appeal? No retrying the case, just a review of procedural correctness - getting screwed by the book.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:

It has long ceased to be funny that those yokels in Sacramento somehow consider themselves to be "THE PEOPLE".

Which of those idiots proposed this legislation, and who were the others who went along with it? We still have a gaping deficit and unemployment is still astronomical in my kneck of the woods, and they have the time to mess with this?