Collier County will amend its sign law to comply with First Amendment

By KATY BISHOP
Tuesday, April 22, 2008



Collier’s sign laws need editing to protect freedom of speech.

County commissioners had a closed attorney-client session Tuesday about a lawsuit alleging that Collier’s sign code violates a business’s freedom of speech. After the session, they voted unanimously to change the code so it doesn’t violate the First Amendment.

Mobile Exposure, a Bonita Springs-based mobile advertising company, filed a lawsuit alleging Collier’s prohibition of moving signs on the company’s trucks violated its right to free speech. The lawsuit was filed in June in U.S. District Court in Fort Myers.

Mobile Exposure sells advertising on trucks, and as the trucks travel down the road, slats on three sides rotate every eight seconds like window blinds to reveal a total of three advertisements each.

In February, the federal court granted Mobile Exposure owners Jon McLeod and Kevin Morrison a preliminary injunction, forcing Collier to allow them to rotate their signs in the county until the suit is settled.

U.S. District Judge John Steele granted the preliminary injunction because Mobile Exposure proved substantial likelihood that they would win the case, he wrote in his opinion.

First Amendment cases like Mobile Exposure’s require the court to decide whether the sign regulations are content-based or content-neutral, meaning whether the government is regulating based on the message of the sign, Steele wrote.

If a law is content-based it must pass a strict scrutiny test and is constitutional only if it is the least restrictive way to advance a “compelling state interest,” he said.

But Collier’s sign code distinguishes between permitted and prohibited speech based on ideas or views expressed and includes content-based exemptions and prohibitions, Steele wrote.

For example, commemorative signs, “No Tresspassing” and “No Dumping” signs are exempt from the code, while moving signs aren’t allowed unless they display time or temperature.

The parts of the sign code at issue in the case aren’t “narrowly tailored” enough to accomplish the county’s goals in aesthetics, traffic safety and economic growth, and those interests aren’t compelling enough to justify content-based restrictions, Steele wrote.

Mobile Exposure met the four requirements for a preliminary injunction, the judge concluded, and proved substantial likelihood that it would win the case.

Commissioners voted to comply with the court’s order and not enforce the code against Mobile Exposure, and to instruct the county attorney to move forward with a settlement on the case.

If a settlement is reached, it will come before the commissioners for approval, Jacqueline Hubbard, assistant county attorney, told commissioners at the meeting; if a settlement cannot be reached, the commissioners asked the attorney to move forward with mediation in federal and state court.

Attorneys Richard Annunziata, representing Mobile Exposure, and Jeff Klatzkow, representing Collier County, declined comment, citing the pending litigation.