# Local Ordinances vs. Constitution **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [July 11, 2016, 12:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/local-ordinances-vs-constitution/759614 "2016-07-11T00:03:10Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Mrdeals](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ea666f/32.png) [@Mrdeals](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mrdeals)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2016, 12:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/local-ordinances-vs-constitution/759614/1 "2016-07-11T00:03:10Z")
Just got done applying and paying for a permit to use a sign for my business. The fee wasn’t much, i believe less than $30, so i didn’t think too much of it, but does my local city, charging me a fee to hang a sign, and issuing a fine if i do not apply and pay, violate the first amendment of the constitution? ---
**Author:** ![Oakminster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/77aa72/32.png) [@Oakminster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Oakminster)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2016, 12:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/local-ordinances-vs-constitution/759614/2 "2016-07-11T00:05:34Z")
No. It’s a zoning ordinance, content neutral. Lots of cities/towns have them, some are more strictly enforced than others. ---
**Author:** ![OldGuy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/3bc359/32.png) [@OldGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/OldGuy)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2016, 12:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/local-ordinances-vs-constitution/759614/3 "2016-07-11T00:05:37Z")
No. The Constitution would only prohibit the city from restricting what you cold say on it. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2016, 12:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/local-ordinances-vs-constitution/759614/4 "2016-07-11T00:15:59Z")
It might! This area of law is actually tremendously complicated, and the advice given by the posters above me is not categorically correct. Much depends on exactly what signs the ordinance applies to, the existence of exceptions, and the municipalities stated justification for the regulation. To say more, we’d probably need to take a look at the individual ordinance. ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2016, 12:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/local-ordinances-vs-constitution/759614/5 "2016-07-11T00:39:30Z")
> [@OldGuy](#): > > No. The Constitution would only prohibit the city from restricting what you cold say on it. It most definitely does! You can’t have a sign up in front of your business that says (for instance) “Replicas of ‘Piss Christ’ Available Here,” even if you were legitimately vending licensed reproductions of that controversial work of art. In fact, you can’t have a business name that includes the name of a crime, as a group found out who wanted to do business as the “Medieval Mayhem Society.” Blocked by law. The reasoning is similar to the idea that radio and TV airwaves belong “to the public.” If you’re doing business, and putting up a sign, that sign isn’t “private property” but in the public sphere, and thus far more subject to restriction and regulation than private speech or print. ---
**Author:** ![Exapno\_Mapcase](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/exapno_mapcase/32/1051_2.png) [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2016, 1:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/local-ordinances-vs-constitution/759614/6 "2016-07-11T01:11:29Z")
The OP asked about a locality charging a fee for a sign and asking whether that violates the First Amendment. Oakminster answered that. What signs can and can’t say is a different question. I’m curious what exact ordinance is being violated by a sign advertising “piss Christ”, though. Over-the-air radio and television is regulated by the government because they are a limited resource, just as all transmission bands are. Cable and satellite programming are equally in the public sphere but aren’t regulated by the government. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2016, 1:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/local-ordinances-vs-constitution/759614/7 "2016-07-11T01:15:11Z")
> [@Exapno\_Mapcase](#): > > The OP asked about a locality charging a fee for a sign and asking whether that violates the First Amendment. Oakminster answered that. But that answer is incorrect, for a few reasons. First, we don’t know that it’s content-neutral. The OP didn’t offer any information about what signs the fee applies to, which is how you’d determine whether it is content-neutral. Second, not every content-neutral sign policy is constitutional. For example, if the City Council enacted a $30 fee on commercial on-premise signs in order to fund business inspections, that law would be unconstitutional. Like many legal questions, more information would be needed. It is true that not every fee charged by a municipality to use a commercial sign is unconstitutional. But lots of them are. It depends on the details. ---
**Author:** ![boffking](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/858c86/32.png) [@boffking](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/boffking)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2016, 1:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/local-ordinances-vs-constitution/759614/8 "2016-07-11T01:19:53Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > It most definitely does! You can’t have a sign up in front of your business that says (for instance) “Replicas of ‘Piss Christ’ Available Here,” even if you were legitimately vending licensed reproductions of that controversial work of art. > > In fact, you can’t have a business name that includes the name of a crime, as a group found out who wanted to do business as the “Medieval Mayhem Society.” Blocked by law. > > The reasoning is similar to the idea that radio and TV airwaves belong “to the public.” If you’re doing business, and putting up a sign, that sign isn’t “private property” but in the public sphere, and thus far more subject to restriction and regulation than private speech or print. Arson can be a man’s name. Are you saying that a man named Arson couldn’t name a business after himself? ---
**Author:** ![Mrdeals](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ea666f/32.png) [@Mrdeals](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mrdeals)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2016, 1:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/local-ordinances-vs-constitution/759614/9 "2016-07-11T01:20:09Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > The OP didn’t offer any information about what signs the fee applies to, which is how you’d determine whether it is content-neutral. . The sign that i applied for was outdoor signage attached to my building, displaying my logo, name, and hours of operation. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2016, 1:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/local-ordinances-vs-constitution/759614/10 "2016-07-11T01:24:00Z")
> [@Mrdeals](#): > > The sign that i applied for was outdoor signage attached to my building, displaying my logo, name, and hours of operation. The constitutional question (or, one of them) is what signs the fee is applied to. Generally, it is constitutional to require a nominal fee for commercial signs, so long as the fee is not designed to produce revenue for non-sign-related purposes. But many jurisdictions fuck this up, either by stating an unconstitutional rationale for the regulation, using the fee revenues for the wrong things, or providing exceptions to the policy that make it no longer content-neutral. That’s why I said we would need to know more to tell you whether this particular ordinance is kosher. ---
**Author:** ![Me\_Billy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e480ec/32.png) [@Me\_Billy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Me_Billy)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2016, 1:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/local-ordinances-vs-constitution/759614/11 "2016-07-11T01:43:25Z")
As they say, “You can’t fight city hall!” You can try, but I would pay the 2 cents. ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2016, 2:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/local-ordinances-vs-constitution/759614/12 "2016-07-11T02:02:06Z")
> [@Exapno\_Mapcase](#): > > . . . I’m curious what exact ordinance is being violated by a sign advertising “piss Christ”, though. . . . [Well, here’s a pdf in general terms for San Diego (California) Zoning Regulations.](http://www.mapc.org/sites/default/files/Municipal%20Sign%20%26%20Billboard%20Regulations%202_approved%20for%20release.pdf) The relevant bit is, “Note - Some speech (i.e. obscenity, defamation, and fighting words) is not protected by the First Amendment.” > [@boffking](#): > > Arson can be a man’s name. Are you saying that a man named Arson couldn’t name a business after himself? Grin! Interesting case. There would probably be an exemption for such a case, but it might require a lawyer and a hearing. If the guy’s name is “Rape Murder Vandalism Jr.,” I think he may be out of luck. ---
**Author:** ![Exapno\_Mapcase](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/exapno_mapcase/32/1051_2.png) [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2016, 2:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/local-ordinances-vs-constitution/759614/13 "2016-07-11T02:29:12Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > [Well, here’s a pdf in general terms for San Diego (California) Zoning Regulations.](http://www.mapc.org/sites/default/files/Municipal%20Sign%20%26%20Billboard%20Regulations%202_approved%20for%20release.pdf) > > The relevant bit is, “Note - Some speech (i.e. obscenity, defamation, and fighting words) is not protected by the First Amendment.” That’s a true statement. The question I’m asking is whether it has any relevance to a sign reading “Replicas of ‘Piss Christ’ Available Here.” You aren’t beginning to address that. ---
**Author:** ![Procrustus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/procrustus/32/2994_2.png) [@Procrustus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Procrustus)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2016, 2:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/local-ordinances-vs-constitution/759614/14 "2016-07-11T02:34:06Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > [Well, here’s a pdf in general terms for San Diego (California) Zoning Regulations.](http://www.mapc.org/sites/default/files/Municipal%20Sign%20%26%20Billboard%20Regulations%202_approved%20for%20release.pdf) > > The relevant bit is, “Note - Some speech (i.e. obscenity, defamation, and fighting words) is not protected by the First Amendment.” that link takes me to flyer about Massachusetts sign regulations, not San Diego. It looks generally correct, but I wouldn’t take the government’s word as gospel for what the government can do. ETA: Nothing that would justify prohibiting “piss Christ replicas” that I saw. ---
**Author:** ![md2000](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/73ab20/32.png) [@md2000](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/md2000)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2016, 2:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/local-ordinances-vs-constitution/759614/15 "2016-07-11T02:47:14Z")
How about the accounting firm, “Dewey, Cheatham and Howe”? ---
**Author:** ![Alley\_Dweller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/alley_dweller/32/430_2.png) [@Alley\_Dweller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alley_Dweller)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2016, 3:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/local-ordinances-vs-constitution/759614/16 "2016-07-11T03:15:26Z")
> [@boffking](#): > > Arson can be a man’s name. Are you saying that a man named Arson couldn’t name a business after himself? Good luck to Mr McDonald if he wants to name his drive-through hamburger restaurant after himself. ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2016, 3:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/local-ordinances-vs-constitution/759614/17 "2016-07-11T03:46:06Z")
> [@Exapno\_Mapcase](#): > > That’s a true statement. The question I’m asking is whether it has any relevance to a sign reading “Replicas of ‘Piss Christ’ Available Here.” You aren’t beginning to address that. I did address it. I quoted a reference that said you can’t use obscenities in your signage. “Piss” is an obscenity (or reasonably could be construed as one by a zoning regulator.) ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2016, 3:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/local-ordinances-vs-constitution/759614/18 "2016-07-11T03:49:25Z")
> [@Procrustus](#): > > that link takes me to flyer about Massachusetts sign regulations, not San Diego. It looks generally correct, but I wouldn’t take the government’s word as gospel for what the government can do. > > ETA: Nothing that would justify prohibiting “piss Christ replicas” that I saw. Oops; I got there by searching “San Diego Signage Regulations.” Dunno how that led me to Mass of Juices… And…what part of “obscenity” is unclear here? ---
**Author:** ![Exapno\_Mapcase](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/exapno_mapcase/32/1051_2.png) [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2016, 3:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/local-ordinances-vs-constitution/759614/19 "2016-07-11T15:51:41Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > I did address it. I quoted a reference that said you can’t use obscenities in your signage. “Piss” is an obscenity (or reasonably could be construed as one by a zoning regulator.) Zoning regulators could conceivably construe anything as an obscenity. That doesn’t mean it would stand up in court anywhere. You made a flat statement. > [@](#): > > You can’t have a sign up in front of your business that says (for instance) “Replicas of ‘Piss Christ’ Available Here,” even if you were legitimately vending licensed reproductions of that controversial work of art. So far you’ve given nothing solid that backs that up. ---
**Author:** ![boffking](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/858c86/32.png) [@boffking](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/boffking)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2016, 4:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/local-ordinances-vs-constitution/759614/20 "2016-07-11T16:54:57Z")
I don’t think constitutionality comes into play about Piss Christ. If you sell replicas of it, I’m pretty sure it’s a copyright violation. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/local-ordinances-vs-constitution/759614.md?page=2)