Question

Question # 2 The city of Atlanta, Georgia enacted an ordinance that imposes significant restrictions on the installation of outdoor advertising within the city. The express objectives of the ordinance are “to eradicate risks to motorists and other citizens caused by potentially distracting outdoor advertising” and “to maintain and enhance the attractiveness of Atlanta.” The ordinance allows certain commercial advertising (signs advertising products obtainable at the location where the sign is placed), but outlaws other types of outdoor advertisements, both commercial and non-commercial, unless expressly allowed by one of the ordinance’s 10 stated exclusions, such as impermanent political election signs. Big Al’s Big Ads Inc., and other organizations involved in outdoor advertising in the city when the ordinance was enacted, brought suit in state court alleging that the ordinance was unconstitutional. They sought an injunction against enforcement of the ordinance. The trial court determined that the ordinance was an unconstitutional violation of Big Al’s First Amendment rights. The Georgia Court of Appeals affirmed, but the Georgia Supreme Court reversed, holding, among other things, that the ordinance was not invalid under the First Amendment. Big Al’s and the other companies appeal to the United States Supreme Court and the Court agrees to hear the case. How does the Court generally deal with issues involving freedom of speech? How will the Court deal with the issues presented by this particular case? Fully discuss how the Court would likely analyze this case.

Answer 1

In the dealing with cases involving freedom of speech the court looks at the ethos and purpose for which this freedom was provided by the U.S. constitution through the 1^st Amendment. The 1^st Amendment provides for freedom of speech, press, religion, assembly and petition. The primary objective of this freedom is to ensure that minority viewpoints are protected. It is to ensure that the minority viewpoint (which often happens to be the unpopular viewpoint) is not, in any way, overpowered by the majority viewpoint. Thus while dealing with cases involving freedom of

‘’ speech the court looks at this particular aspect and determines if the minority viewpoint is being overpowered or overshadowed or not.’’

With regards to this particular case the court will look at the facts of the case to see if freedom of any of the five elements – i.e. speech, press, religion, assembly and petition – are being infringed upon or not. Given the facts of this case the court will regard advertisements in this case as commercial speech. As per the U.S. Supreme Court commercial speech is not accorded full protection under the U.S. Constitution. The contents of the speech here will be characterized as advertisement and hence the court will not deem or regard it as a case of freedom of speech