U.S. Supreme Court asked to resolve 'for sale' sign dispute

Censoring speech?
U.S. Supreme Court asked to resolve 'for sale' sign dispute
BY CARRIE WHITAKER | Friday, October 19, 2007

GLENDALE - Attorneys for this village hope the U.S. Supreme Court will
decide that hanging a "for sale" sign in a vehicle on a public street
is an act that can be banned by a municipality.

The topic may seem trivial, but both sides believe the issue is of
national importance.

Since 2003, the village and a resident, Chris Pagan, have been at odds
over a village law that does not allow vehicles to be for sale on
public streets.

Pagan was told to take down a sign in his car or face a $250 fine or
jail time. He removed the sign and filed a federal lawsuit seeking to
overturn the law as an infringement on his freedom of speech.

Pagan lost in U.S. District Court in Cincinnati and in the 6th U.S.
Circuit Court of Appeals, where a three-judge panel upheld the
District Court.

Pagan was approached by the Institute of Justice, a libertarian law
firm based in Arlington, Va., to appeal that decision. His new
attorney convinced the full court of appeals to hear the case.

On June 29, the court reversed the decisions and sided with Pagan in
an 8-7 ruling, declaring that the government must have some evidence,
beyond its own belief, that there is some real harm to residents to
censor speech. The court decided Glendale had not done that.

Now, the village wants the U.S. Supreme Court to decide who's right.

Glendale's attorney, Larry Barbiere, hopes the Supreme Court will
decide that legislative bodies can justify a regulation "based on
history, consensus and common sense," according to the petition filed
with the Supreme Court.

The village is not footing the bill on this legal move, or any of the
previous ones in this case, said Village Administrator Walter Cordes.

Barbiere has been hired and paid by the village's insurance company,
Toledo-based Ohio Government Risk Management, which made the decision
to appeal to the Supreme Court, Cordes said.

"Our village solicitor and the insurance company discussed it with the
council and there was no discouragement not to pursue it," Cordes
said. "It's my impression this is much bigger than Glendale."

Glendale officials and the insurance company, which represents many
Ohio governments that have similar ordinances, believe the law is a
safety and aesthetic issue.

Barbiere said Pagan's narrow victory in the 6th Circuit shows some
uncertainty surrounds the issue.

The Supreme Court generally hears fewer than 2 percent of the
petitions filed each term, according to the court's Web site. If it
accepts Glendale's case, it will be Barbiere's first time in front of
the nation's highest court.

If the Supreme Court rejects the case, it goes back to District Court,
where a judge will determine how much Glendale owes Pagan in damages
and court costs.

"I'm not sure how much that would be exactly, but certainly hundreds
of thousands of dollars," Pagan said. "I didn't think this was in
their economic self-interest."

Cordes said the insurance company has Glendale "fully covered" if this
happens.

There are 17 communities in Greater Cincinnati that have laws
forbidding the placement of cars for sale in public streets, according
to the dissenting opinion in the 6th Circuit decision.

Cheviot does not allow "for sale" signs in car windows. Police Chief
David Voss said it's "absolutely not" a safety issue.

"It keeps our streets from being populated by cars with 'for sale'
signs, but I don't think it's been an issue for us," he said.

Whether it's aesthetics or safety, Pagan doesn't buy the argument.
"The government has to prove that when they regulate speech that there
is danger of real and actual harm," Pagan said.
Copyright 2007, Enquirer.com
http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.d...426/1056/COL02
-----

- gpsman