Join the Discussion

Comments So Far: 5

• 0%

  david_nwpa5 months, 1 week ago

  Why should signs supporting Joe's roofing or Bob's Heating and Air Conditioning remain on those lawns and one's supporting the future leader of the United States be ordered down? Sounds to me like Montclair Township needs to re-read the Constitutions of New Jersey and the United States. Freedom of speech does not mean that the signs should be limited to the contractors who paid to elect the zoning commission.

  Reply
• 0%

  lenseview5 months, 1 week ago

  Agree with David. If a town is going to allow commercial signs all over the neighborhood, they shouldn't prohibit political signs. Towns do restrict all kinds of ways people can "decorate" their properties. But, if they're going to allow signs by realtors & contractors to languish on lawns for months (sometimes what seems forever), they ought to allow people to express themselves politically.

  Reply
• 0%

  MajJohn5 months, 1 week ago

  The township is in obvious violation of the law and the little dictators will freely have their way until challenged in court. The signs to elect Joe Blow represent protected political speech and the people of Smallville?, why when the ordnance was passed they just shrugged and said , O Well! Shame!

  Reply
• 0%

  TrueProgressive5 months, 1 week ago

  You're all correct. The ordinance is clearly content based, and any restriction on speech based on its content, if otherwise not unlawful, like obscenity or defamation, is unconstitutional on its face. In addition, the Supreme Court just invalidated, on First Amendment grounds, the Feingold/McCain campaign finance law that prohibited political contributions within 60 days of an election. Personally, I completely disagree with that decision. No dispute exists that large amounts of money influence elections, which is what the law aimed to prevent. The law is similar to rules preventing campaigning within 100 feet of polling places. That situation differs completely from individuals, no matter how famous or influential, advancing their personal positions on candidates and ballot propositions. Nevertheless, if the Court rejected a congressionally passed law that is similar to that fluffball ordinance, the ordinance is toast under the federal Constitution.

  Reply
• 0%

  chevydog5 months, 1 week ago

  My guess is that this is more about the perceived preservation of neighborly harmony than free speech. Never heard of two people upset with each other because they use diferent plumbers.

  Then again, one could argue that the politicians weren't providing nearly as valuable a service as the plumbers.

  Reply