Talk of the Town - Cheap shots November 18 2000

I’m not a big fan of billboards. I think that, for the most part, they are little more than eyesores. (Though I have to admit, the antics of the Chick-fil-A cows usually elicit a chuckle from me.) Recently, local cities — including Snellville — are trying to limit the number of billboards located within their boundaries.
Predictably, they’re heading to court.
Two advertising companies are challenging the Snellville ordinance on outdoor advertising. One already has filed suit. The other is expected to either join the suit or file one of its own.
The complaint of the advertising companies is that the ordinance prohibits off-premises advertising. That means a company can advertise only on its own property.
The basis of the suit(s) is expected to be that the Snellville ordinance is prohibiting the free speech rights of the companies that want to advertise. The president of one of the companies is quoted as saying, “The real issue here is that the First Amendment is being violated.”
Hogwash.
I get so sick and tired of people arguing the “First Amendment” at the drop of a hat. (It kind of reminds me of the famous scene from “The Andy Griffith Show” where Gomer ran after Barney’s patrol car yelling, “Citizen’s arrest! Citizen’s arrest!”) People who try to use the First Amendment as a basis for a fight usually have no idea what it says or means.
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”
Pardon me ... but I just don’t see anything in the First Amendment that guarantees the right to advertise.
True, the founding fathers couldn’t have possibly known billboards would become a staple in the advertising community. Nor could they have envisioned the millions of miles Americans would travel over the vast interstate highway system — a system that meshes perfectly with outdoor advertising.
After all, who hasn’t traveled down I-75 south toward Macon and seen the signs advertising the “We Bare All” truck stop and nudie bar 30 miles before you get there? And many people over the age of 50 have memories of the famous “Burma Shave” signs.
But the First Amendment was instituted to help protect the right of the people to worship in whatever way they choose, not in a government-mandated religion. It also was written to help protect the right of a group of people — or even a single, solitary individual — to protest the actions of his or her government in the face of an overwhelming majority.
To say the First Amendment protects advertising cheapens its beauty.
The Snellville ordinance allows a privately owned company to advertise its business on its own property (or on property that it may be leasing.) To do otherwise would infringe on the right of a company to advertise itself or its product.
What the ordinance doesn’t allow is for a property owner to allow an advertising company to erect a sign on his or her property if the owner wants to allow it. This is where the ordinance should be challenged.
If I own a business on a section of highly traveled road (Scenic Highway or Highway 78, for example), why shouldn’t I be allowed to lease a portion of my property to an advertising company if they want to pay me for it? Why should a city or county deprive me of a beneficial use of my property as long as it poses no danger to the public?
As long as the billboard isn’t obscene, why shouldn’t a property owner be able to allow a company to erect a large sign? It harms no one. It benefits the property owner, the advertising company, and (hopefully) the company doing the advertising.
I have no problem if a city wants to limit the height and size of billboards. I wouldn’t even mind if a city prohibited excessively crude language and nudity on the signs.
After all, we do have the children to think about.
But no city should be prohibiting property owners from using a small portion of their land for their benefit. If these companies want to file a challenge, let them challenge the ordinances on the grounds of property rights, not free speech.
To do so just cheapens the First Amendment.
Richard Williamson lives in Lawrenceville and works for the DeKalb County school system. E-mail: rick.w@mindspring.com.