Can cities discriminate between political and commercial signs on public property?
Q: Our city claims we can not put political signs in the public right of way unless we have a person stationed there to watch them. They have taken many of our signs and now they want to fine us. They have real estate signs there and other monument-type signs regarding new developments in the right of way. Is a City justified in inhibiting political speech?
A: In public forums, such as sidewalks, streets, train and railway stations, and parks, the government must bear an extraordinarily heavy burden to regulate speech in such locales. Grossman v. City of Portland, 33 F.3d 1200, 1204 (9th Cir. 1995).
With respect to public forums, the government has the right to establish regulations on the “time, place and manner” of protected speech. In order to impose restrictions on speech in a public forum, the restrictions must be “justified without reference to the content of the regulated speech . . . narrowly tailored to serve a significant governmental interest, and . . . leave open ample alternative channels for communication of the information.” Ward v. Rock Against Racism, 491 U.S. 781, 791 (1989).
We cannot tell you why your particular City is taking the action described in your submission. Nevertheless, to the extent that you are asking whether the City’s actions violate the right of speech, it appears that your City may be discriminating on the basis of content (i.e., forbidding political speech in public rights of way but allowing other types of speech without restriction in the same location).