City Manager Says Political Signs Are Advertising

Letter Claims IrvineTattler.com Is Not Political

By Stephen C. Smith
Irvine Tattler Publisher
Posted May 20, 2008

A letter sent today from City Manager Sean Joyce to citizen activist Allan Bartlett says that political signs urging readers to visit IrvineTattler.com "simply constitute advertising."

The letter was forwarded to me by Mr. Bartlett, who granted permission to post it here.

The Irvine Tattler reported on May 15 that a City of Irvine inspector had threatened me with fines if any more signs mentioning this web site were posted in the city. I explained to the inspector that I had no knowledge of the signs but would ask on this site for the responsible individual to come forward.

The article was updated at 10:00 PM that evening, reporting that Bartlett had contacted me in e-mail to say he had sponsored the signs. Bartlett wrote:

I put up the Irvine Tattler signs because I wanted to bring attention to the mismanagement going on at Irvine City Hall. I'm very disappointed that the signs were ordered to be taken down by the powers that be. I grew up here in this city and I know that most people are very apolitical. I'm hoping to change that and get people more involved in what happens at Irvine City Hall.

Bartlett cited the Irvine Free Speech Ordinance:

CHAPTER 6. FREE SPEECH RIGHTS

Sec. 4-14-601. Prohibitions.
No person shall interfere with the exercise of free speech rights by persons within areas open to the general public in shopping centers, apartment complexes and other private or public property open to the general public. As used in this section, "free speech rights" shall mean the right to freedom of speech, the right to solicit and collect signatures on petitions and the right to distribute literature or display temporary signs or placards of a political nature; provided such activities do not result in the obstruction of entrances, exits or passageways or create a threat to public safety.
(Code 1976, § IV.L-601; Ord. No. 90-3, § 1, 2-13-90)

Mr. Joyce's letter replies that the Free Speech Ordinance is not applicable.

For example, and by your own admission, the signs at issue are for the purpose of promoting the subject website and, as such, simply constitute advertising. The mere fact that an advertised website may contain expressions of political opinions does not establish an unfettered right for any person or entity to erect such advertising. You no doubt understand that if this were to be the case, there would be no public property anywhere in the City untouched by advertising signs and other commercial passages.

Expressing my own opinion here ... Given the above interpretation by the City Manager, would that means that signs reading HillaryClinton.com, BarackObama.com, or JohnMcCain.com would be confiscated from public property because the constitute advertising of a web site? What about Greenpeace.org or Moveon.org or NAACP.org?

It seems to me that this incident is treading into First Amendment rights that are fundamental to protecting the freedoms we enjoy in this country.

We're all struggling with how the Internet is fundamentally changing political communication in this country. Candidates have increasingly turned to the Internet as a means of circumventing the corporate-controlled media which filters their message into tiny sound bites. Political advocacy groups rely on their web sites as a major source of revenue and disseminating information.

Ironically, when Larry Agran ran in 1991-92 for the Democratic nomination for President of the United States, I was the one who brought his campaign to the Internet. The campaign participated on now-defunct services such as CompuServe and GEnie. Agran participated in a live online chat in CompuServe's political forum. The campaign disseminated its positions through Usenet newsgroups, and answered voter questions through an e-mail address.

Section 7-3-3 of Irvine's Zoning Code, cited by Mr. Joyce in his letter, does not require that a sign advocate a candidate or an issue. It says political signs are "only allowed for political campaigns for which Irvine voters are eligible, to be removed no later than 10 days following an election."

I'm no lawyer, but it seems that this seems to unduly restrict individuals wishing to express a political opinion on an issue that doesn't directly appear on the ballot. What if someone wants to advocate banning abortion or protecting gun ownership or Arctic oil drilling? None of those are going to be on an Irvine ballot any time soon, but most certainly they are subjects American citizens debate exercising their right of free speech.

Discussing the matter with Irvine residents in recent days who've contacted me in e-mail, I've heard the sentiment expressed that some people in Irvine loathe campaign signs, finding them ugly or somehow a threat to their property values. Well, that's the price we pay for our freedom. I wouldn't like it, but if my neighbor placed a sign on his property that read INVADE IRAN NOW!! I'd support his right to express himself although I disagreed with his opinion.

So what if my neighbor took the next step and placed signs around town reading INVADE IRAN NOW!! that were placed and sized similar to the campaigns currently underway in Irvine?

What if he started a web site and advertised it with a sign that read WWW.INVADEIRANNOW.ORG!!

As someone who considers himself a progressive and a civil libertarian, my belief is that we should be as open and as tolerant as possible when allowing citizens to exercise their free speech. You don't have to like the sign. You don't even have to read it. But I think it's dangerous when a government starts to infringe on free speech rights in such a bureaucratic and heavy-handed fashion.

It should also be noted that, at the end of the letter, Mr. Joyce tells Mr. Bartlett he cannot have his signs back until he provides "a copy of the invoice and receipt from the sign printer indicating that you placed the purchase order."

Although this may be intended to prove that Mr. Bartlett actually owns the signs, at the same time it creates a chilling overtone of government intrusion into the partisan political process. Bartlett was asked to show the government who ordered and paid for the signs. Some residents commented to me today that this sounds like a fishing expedition, an attempt to identify others involved in the sign project so they can be targeted for fines or retaliation by those criticized here on the Irvine Tattler.

One final note ... Dan Chmielewski, the properietor of The Liberal OC blog and an unabashed supporter of Irvine councilman Larry Agran, posted on the conservative Red County blog a claim that he called Irvine City Hall last Friday and was told the signs were confiscated because they were the wrong size.

This has been proven to be a lie.

For openers, City Hall was closed on Friday. If you read Mr. Joyce's letter, it's very clear that the size of the sign was never the issue. The issue is whether the sign was "advertising" not protected by free speech rights.