Libertarian litigators challenge Dallas sign ban

November 13, 10:21 AMLibertarian News ExaminerGarry Reed

Previous Next

3 comments Print Email RSS Subscribe

Subscribe

Get alerts when there is a new article from the Libertarian News Examiner. Read Examiner.com's terms of use.

Email Address   Include other special offers from Examiner.com Terms of Use

From the Texas Chapter of the
Institute for Justice: "April makes
signs for a living. She uses her
own business to show what she
can do for customers. Yet, her
tasteful, attractive signs violate
the letter of the Dallas ordinance."
(photo courtesy of Institute for
Justice)

The Texas Chapter of the Institute for Justice, a nonprofit libertarian organization based in Washington DC, filed a federal lawsuit on Tuesday against the city of Dallas' sign ordinance.

The ordinance, according to a Dallas Morning News article, restricts where and how many signs stores can post in their front windows, glass doors, and on the building's façade.

The city seems to see the issue only in terms of crime deterrence and beautification, while the Institute for Justice sees the ban as a violation of First Amendment rights that harms small businesses by making it "nearly impossible for entrepreneurs to advertise."

Dallas complains that when all the glass windows and doors are plastered with signs police can't see inside where a robbery might be in progresses, making crime prevention difficult if not impossible.

But this argument seems tenuous when one considers that the Supreme Court ruled in 2005 that the police have no constitutional duty to protect a person from harm. Lower courts across the country had repeatedly ruled the same way as well.

So while it may be a frightening experience for a shopkeeper with a shotgun to ward off pistol-packing thugs, as a practical matter it may be the only alternative to relying on the police who may not only be miles or minutes away but have no legal requirement to protect them in the first place.

Crime may even go down once criminals learn that they have more to fear from the person behind the counter than they do from the person behind the badge. So whether or not police can see through a store window becomes moot.

As for the city beautification argument, Mayor Pro Tem Dwaine Caraway claims the sign ban "has begun a process of cleaning up and restoring pride into our community."

But mandatory "beautification" is almost certain to run into charges of property rights violations as well.

In Gilliland, et al v. City of Dallas, the Institute accuses the city of "violating the free speech rights of local businesses."

Matt Miller, executive director of the Texas Chapter of the Institute for Justice noted that dozens of similar laws have appeared in the past five years, and says, "We expect that a victory in the Dallas sign ban case would go a long way to stopping this spread not only in Texas, but nationwide.”

Columnist George F. Will called America's
only libertarian public interest law firm “A
merry band of libertarian litigators.”
(courtesy of ij.org)

To April Gilliland, the lawsuit's namesake plaintiff, the ban isn't about crime deterrence or beautification or even Constitutional theory, it's about business survival.

Co-owner of a FASTSIGNS franchise, Gilliland said, “I’ve had to tell many business owners that I can’t put a sign in their window, or on their door, because it violates the new Dallas ordinance."

Sidestepping the Constitutional issue, Caraway insists the suit is just a case of outsiders and moneyed interests trying to overturn a law. "They don't live here; it's as simple as that. Their address is Washington, DC, and our address is Dallas, Texas."

But the same can be said of Dallas people themselves. They don't live in glass-fronted stores; they live in their homes. They have their own addresses and stores have their own addresses. That's ownership and property rights, and libertarians hold that some people's idea of "beautification" or "safety" should never be allowed to run roughshod over somebody's else's property.