Speak Outs
Speak Out
Does a town’s sign ordinance violate the First Amendment?

Nov. 12, 2014

By Jeremy Quattlebaum, Student Voices staff writer

When Clyde Reed, the pastor of Good News Community Church in Gilbert, Ariz., wanted to announce his worship service in a rented space at an elementary school, he did what other churches do: He put up signs around the community, 17 to be exact.

He did not know that he was in violation of the town’s strict sign law, and received an advisory notice from Gilbert.

The town had enacted a law that restricted the size and number of signs and how long the signs could be up, based on the type of sign and its content. The restrictions were created, as the ordinance states, “to promote optimum conditions for serving sign owners’ needs and respecting their rights to identification while balancing the aesthetic interests of the community.”

The ordinance established different rules depending on the signs’ content and who was putting them up. Political signs for example, can be up to 16 square feet in residential areas and 32 square feet in nonresidential areas. They can be put up 60 days before an election. Garage sale signs, on the other hand, can be no greater than 6 square feet and be up only for the duration of the sale. There can be only three total signs, restricted to residential areas. Ideological signs, which are meant to convey a noncommercial message or idea, can be posted anywhere indefinitely.

Since Reed’s church signs were considered to be for an event, only four were allowed, and they could be only 6 square feet and could be put up only 12 hours before the event. This meant that Reed would have to go out every Saturday night to put up four signs for his Sunday service, and then take them down when the service was over. Reed sued the town, saying that the ordinance violated his First Amendment right to free expression and discriminated against religious groups under the 14th Amendment.

The First Amendment, when it comes to issues like speech, doesn’t allow you to say anything you want. You can’t yell fire in a crowded theater, for example. Other restrictions on speech are allowed as long as they are content-neutral and justifiable, meaning the government cannot impose limits just because it doesn’t like the message. Content-specific restrictions can be constitutional, but they are harder to prove necessary and are often found unconstitutional.

Here’s an example to determine whether a restriction on speech is content-neutral or content-specific.

If your town banned parades, including 4th of July and Veterans Day parades, because it can’t afford to pay for the police to monitor the parade, the ban would be content-neutral. The town isn’t restricting any one particular view; it’s restricting all views, and it has a reasonable justification. The town is broke, and it can’t afford to pay police to block off the roads and make sure everyone is safe.

But if the town had a law that said all racial heritage parades were not allowed because town officials feared a KKK parade might spark violence, the law would be considered content-specific. The town isn’t saying no to all parades, just specific ones. The ban would probably be considered unconstitutional, unless the town government could make a strong argument for the restriction in court. It could argue that the town has a small police force and that the parade could provoke violence. But the possibility of violence is not always a strong argument, and the restriction might get struck down in court.

When Reed sued the town of Gilbert, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit found in favor of the town, stating that the ordinance was content-neutral and reasonable in the light of the government’s interests, which was that the town wanted to curb the number of signs within the city limits. All church signs came under the law, so the First Amendment was not violated, the ruling said.

The case isn’t over, because in early July, the Supreme Court decided to review Reed v. Town of Gilbert. Reed’s lawyers, in their petition to the Supreme Court, have asked the justices to determine whether any restrictions on religious signage violate the First Amendment’s free speech clause.

What do you think?

Is the Gilbert sign ordinance constitutional? How would you determine whether it is content-neutral or content-specific? Do you agree with the church or the government’s justification for the law? Join the discussion and let us know what you think!
Join the Discussion
 
 
 
limited to 2000 characters including spaces  



Thank you for commenting.
Your comment is awaiting approval.
Click here to view all Speak Outs
Comments
9/18/2017
Sidney/ MT
Troy
Mr. Faulhaber/ Sidney High School
I believe that the towns ordinance is a violation of the First Amendment. The ordinance has the power to to say what groups can and cannot do inside city limits.

9/15/2017
sidney/ montana
jacob
Mr. faulhaber/ sidney high school
I think the Gilbert sign ordinance is constitutional because it limits everyone's sign usage, therefore isn't prejudice. The city just wants to make sure that the signs won't cluster. I don't, however, agree with the government's justification of the law.

3/17/2016
Stroudsburg, PA
Shawn R.
Mr. Hannah/Stroudsburg JHS
I think the Gilbert sign ordinance is constitutional because it limits everyone's sign usage, therefore isn't prejudice. The city just wants to make sure that the signs won't cluster. I don't, however, agree with the government's justification of the law. Signs that promote church events should be acceptable, as long as it does not directly offend other religions. The signs don't display any prejudice (as far as we know), and it is indeed an example of free speech. The government's ban of the church signs were content-neutral, as it wasn't discriminating the church, and had a valid justification, which was that it violated the city's ordinance.

1/5/2016
Sidney MT
Gunnar Gillespie
Mr. Faulhaber/ Sidney High School
I think that the fact that this incident even happened is sad. There shouldn't be any redculious laws like that in any town, but the point of the matter is that this sign law does not violate the first amendment. I think this because this law as dumb as it sounds or is does not have any effect on your actual freedom of speech. They are not silencing him or taking away his right to free exercise of religion. All there doing is limiting how many signs he can put up in his community.

1/5/2016
Sidney/Montana
Hunter Nice
Mr. Faulhaber/Sidney High School
I believe that the town's sign ordinance is a violation of the first amendment. Why aren't people allowed to put up a sign as big as they want for a particular event? The ordinance is a clear violation of the first amendment because it restricts the size of the posters, when these posters can be hung up, and what certain groups can put on the poster. In this instance for example Clyde Reed made seventeen posters for his church service and wanted to get the word out like an advertisement. But, the ordinance said he could only hang up four and he could only hang them up twelve hours before the event which is just rediculous this town ordinance is clearly in violation of the first amendment.

1/5/2016
Sidney/Montana
Tel Hermanson
Mr.Faulhaber/Sidney High Schools
I do believe that the town's sign ordinance is a violation of the first amendment. The ordinance says what groups can and cannot post signs and how long and how big these posters can be. It discrminates, giving political powers more rights over that of the religious groups. The town does not have reason enough to say that religiuos posters must be smaller and can only be posted for a small amout of time. It is not content nuetral. The town's ordinance is unconstitutional.

11/23/2015
Sidney MT
Cayden Hecker
Mr.Faulhaber Sidney High School
I do believe that the town's sign ordinance is a violation of the first amendment. The ordinance discriminates between different groups, political, religious, and other groups. If the ordinance said that all groups were allowed to hang the same number of signs and allowed the same size of signs then it would not violate the first amendment.

11/23/2015
Sidney/ MT
Sadie
Mr. Faulhaber/Sidney High School
I believe the town did not violate the First Amendment with the sign Ordinance. Why? You may ask? The sign Ordinance doesn't discriminate against any religion or restrict any person's speech. The town also has every right to restrict signs, one was specific to why not, all signs have a limit to how many are put up and when to take them down. You can express your freedom of speech perfectly fine even with a limit of signs put up it may not be fair but that is life and life will never be fair especially government or town laws.

11/20/2015
Sidney, MT
Dakota
Mr. Faulhaber
I believe that the town’s sign Ordinance does not violate the First Amendment because it does not discriminate against any religion or restrict any person’s speech. Although the ordinance seems unnecessary the town has every right to restrict the use of signs within the city limits. However this law can be contradicting because it also restricts people from putting signs on their own private property which does restrict the First Amendment saying that people can’t express their views except for certain days and only for a short time.

11/19/2015
Sidney/Montana
Bryana Christensen
Faulhaber/ Sidney High School
I do not think that the sign ordinance violated the First Amendment. These signs did not affect the town and cause problems. They were content-neutral and justifiable. In addition, the signs did not have any religious discrimination on them. Therefore, it did not violate the First Amendment.

11/19/2015
Sidney, MT
Kaitlyn
Mr. Faulhaber/ Sidney High School
I do not think that the Gilbert sign ordinance is constitutional. They are being unfair with their rules that the signs can only have certain content and can only be up for a certain amount of time. Who is going to check whether or not the signs contain certain content? I agree with the church on this. The town can’t tell Reed what he can’t or can put on the church property.

11/19/2015
Sidney, Montana
Christian Eggar
Mr. Faulhaber Sidney High School
In my opinion I believe that the Gilbert sign ordinance in this case is constitutional even though it may not be totally fair. Yes I believe that this ordinance wanted to reduce the amount of signs in the city, but the reason for not letting him do this is beyond me. For one it is his private rented property and I believe that he should be able to express himself on his property. Now it is a city wide ordinance apparently but I believe that they might have stepped a little on his personal right. So in my opinion I think the ordinance itself is constitutional but maybe not the way they went about doing it on his own personal property. Thank-You.

11/19/2015
Sidney, MT
Clay Fox
Mr. Faulhaber/ Sidney Highschool
In my opinion the city would need to provide a better reason for curbing the amount of signs in the city limits. I feel that the city maybe just wanted to keep the city looking neat. To me this is not a good enough reason to be as strict as they are with their sign ordinance. Even with that said I would still probably rule in favor of the town because of the fact that the ordinance is content neutral. It doesn’t specifically ban or limit any one thing. The city has limited every type of sign making it constitutional.

2/19/2015
Murrieta, CA
Richard
Mr. Jabro / Creekside HS
I believe that the sign ordinance does not violate the constitution. Seeing how there are also other methods of publicity, the sign ordinance should not have been something even needing to be considered. Too many signs can affect the ambiance of a town and cause disturbance among the peace. Content should be determined on what the sign is publicizing. I agree with the justification of the law because there was no religious discrimination.

1/19/2015
texas
Lidia
Bradley/Nimitz
Many people in America have the conception that by the first amendment defending the freedom of speech means that anything can be said, but as the article has already clarified this can be misinterpreted very easily. The town has obviously set these laws or standards in order to protect the entire town's properties and by having such laws in place it doesn't seem to be violating the freedom to express one's religion in reality there are a variety of different methods that the church could have used in order to advertise or promote their speeches. These methods can be a way of expressing their faith without making others feel overwhelmed with unnecessary signs that can sometimes be viewed as annoying and unnecessary. I personally agree with the government's justification because its seeing the needs of the entire town not just the church's or its member's.

1/16/2015
Irving Tx
Alejandro
Ms. Bradley Nimitz High School
There have been many misconceptions regarding the first amendment, with many stemming from the "freedom of speech." Many, adults and children alike, take this to mean anything and everything can be said without reprimand. This is not the case. When creating the first amendment, the authors did not intend to give unrestricted to speech to everyone. Instead the framers were protecting citizens from censorship when it came to protesting the government, as had happened to them under King George III. They simply wanted citizens to be able to criticize the government without fear, in the hopes that if these critiques were justifiable, the citizens would seek to rectify them. This freedom of expression also encompassed free expression of religion and prevented the new government from interfering with this freedom.The only times when the government is allowed to make any law that contacts religion is when the issue is content neutral or the law is meant for a different purpose than discriminating or attempting to regulate religion. When it comes to the case in Gilbert, the city was not passing a law that was imposing restrictions on religion , just on the amount of signs within the city limits. This law applied to all institutions within the city, not just Reed's church. Therefore the law is content neutral and the signs are not subject to constitutional protection.

1/15/2015
Irving/Tx
Tyler
Bradley/Nimitz
If the law is constitutional then it's use in this case was content-neutral. If anyone had had been putting up the signs they would have run into this kind of trouble. Perhaps seventeen signs was a bit excessive, but given that the ordinance was constitutional the way it was used could be used against anyone, not just a pastor promoting a Sunday Service. However, it could be argued that limiting signage in general is a restriction of free speech. If I want to say something I should be able to say it however I want, on a sign however big I want, however many times I want. My right to free speech trumps the city official's right to think the city is "pretty." In my opinion the law wasn't used unconstitutionally intending to discriminate against the pastor, the law itself is simply unconstitutional.

1/15/2015
Irving/Tx
Jocelyn
Bradley/ Nimitz High School
The sign ordinance is constitutional in the fact that it doesn’t just restrict a specific type of sign. The town has restrictions for all of the various signs, but with different times ranges in which they can be put up. This doesn’t necessarily mean that they are showing preference over other types of signs, they just have certain restrictions set out. When we get to the root of it, the ordinance is content specific, because of the different rules they have set for the different content the signs would have. Even though, in general the purpose of marketing with those signs is content-neutral ,but when it gets down to the specifics of what the signs are promoting and their locations, then that in itself is content-specific. Although the restrictions on signs seems extremely strict and absurd, considering that there was no harm done within the community at the cause of Reed’s signs, the fact remains that Reed’s rights were not violated. Reed did get to put up his signs they were just limited on the amount of signs and the time the signs could be up. Also, all the other signs in that area had restrictions too so it’s not like they were singling out religious signs only. Overall, the Gilbert sign ordinance is constitutional and Reed’s rights were not violated.

1/14/2015
Irving/Texas
Rachel
Bradley/Nimitz
The ordinance isn't unconstitutional. It's inconvenient, ridiculous, and bothersome to those who rely on putting up signs to spread information, but it's not technically against the constitution.I don't think the city really needed to put the law in place. However, the necessity of the law is not what's in question: it's the constitutionality. The law is a bit ludicrous but doesn't violate the church's rights.

1/14/2015
Irving/Texas
Jorge
Bradley/Nimitz
The Gilbert sign ordinance is constitutional even though it truly is unfair. It give's restrictions that are unreasonable to the situation. There should be better restrictions and since they are restrictions on all types of sign posting it is content-neutral. I agree the law is constitutional, but should be changed for the churches events.

1/14/2015
Irving/TX
Victor
Bradley/Nimitz
The Gilbert sign ordinance is constitutional because it puts restrictions on all the signs not just some of them. So, I agree with the ruling that the ordinance was content-neutral because it put restrictions on all the signs. Although I find it unfair, it is not unconstitutional.

1/12/2015
Irving/Tx
Katherine
Bradley/Nimitz
The Gilbert sign ordinance is constitutional and content-specific. The ordinance affects many different signs, it is not showing preference over religious affiliation, race, sex, etc., therefore remains constitutional. Allowing political campaign ads to be larger, placed more frequently, and for longer time periods than other signs is not unconstitutional because these are in place to promote the right to vote and do not show government preference.

1/8/2015
Irving,TX
Azaria
Bradley/Nimitz
The Gilbert sign ordinance is constitutional because it puts a limit on signs from all groups and events and does not single out a certain group. Therefore, it is not acting against the freedom of speech that belongs to another group simply because the officials in that city don't like the message. The restrictions as a whole are justifiable base on the towns goal to limit signs in their town. I agree with the government that the rules must be followed by all groups but think that the number of signs being different for different groups is unfair.

12/14/2014
Irving/Tx
Luke
Bradley/Nimitz
The Gilbert sign ordinance in the category of "events" is unconstitutional because by vastly limiting the sign's potential audience it renders the sign unable to fulfill its intended purpose. The category of "events" is so broad that making laws regarding signs about it are content-neutral, but if the restrictions make the signs effectively useless, then it is akin to a law that prohibits the sign entirely.

12/11/2014
Irving,TX
Martin
Ms.Bradley/ Nimitz High School
The Gilbert sign ordinance shouldn't be considered unconstitutional because it puts a restriction on everybody who puts up a sign. Now there is an unfair amount of how many signs different groups can put up, but in the end they all have restrictions I agree with the government the ordinance was content neutral and that all the towns laws must be followed.

12/10/2014
Irving,TX
Miguel
Bradley/Nimitz
The town had a law over signs put up. This law covered all forms of signs, not a just a specific one. The laws set up were meant to be enforced to all, it was the stayed the same for every person who wanted to put up a sign. The law itself gave different restriction to different purposes, but it never changed. The man who is saying the sign ordinance violates the First Amendment is wrong in that argument. The law may be not completely fair, but it also never changes. The law itself allows all to put up signs. The main argument here should not be if it violates the First Amendment, because it doesn't, but if a religious event should be restricted as much as it is in the law. According to the city law, he must take down the signs within 12 hours, something that shouldn't be. Other less important advertisements, according to some, should be up for a much lower time than these events. In the end though, even if the law is not completely fair, it does not violate the First Amendment.

12/9/2014
Irving/Texas
Kierria S.
Bradley/Nimitz
Spreading news to people by signs, billboards, and posters is a good way to get out a message, yet it has it’s faults. Some signs can have larger than normal sizes or can be permitted to certain areas. It’s about how to use space in the community to get out news while at the same time not trying to create conflicts. For example, because our country is based on politics, political ads involving the city or state should be displayed more than a garage sign or a school event that is secluded to two or three neighborhoods. This is due to politics having more of an effect to everyone’s lives and not to a few people, therefore, Gilbert’s sign ordinance is constitutional. Reed’s signs were about religious practices and the government decision was content neutral because it applies for all events that occur in the community. A display of events and beliefs should be considered content neutral or content specific by categorizing how it affects people overall in the city. Even though the first amendment supports free speech, it is logical to support the decision of the government on what certain topics should be displayed and how often they are put up and location.

12/8/2014
Irving/TX
Hillary
Bradley/Nimitz
I believe that a town's sign ordinance does not violate the first amendment. People should be able to express what they believe in. The signs aren't affecting anyone so why should it be a problem?

12/2/2014
Irving,TX
Noemi
Bradley/ Nimitz High School
The first amendment grants citizens the freedom of religion, speech, the press, the right to a peaceful assembly and freedom to petition. However the First amendment also has limitations- it may protect the freedom of speech but there remains a chance of consequences, meaning we can’t really say everything we want to say. Although the limitations seem unconstitutional, the limitations are considered constitutional when they are content-neutral, meaning it restricts all views with reasonable justification. The Gilbert sign ordinance seems constitutional because the restrictions of the signs were not denying a specific view, in this case religion, rather it was a restriction for all signs. The town allowed Reed to put up signs, like the rest of the people or organizations. However the town does not have justifiable reason for limiting signs. They put up these ordinances “to promote optimum conditions for serving sign owners’ needs and respecting their rights to identification while balancing the aesthetic interests of the community.” The Gilbert ordinance is unconstitutional because it only met one requirement, neutral-content, but neglected the second requirement, reasonable justification. Although there was no religious discrimination, the signs were limited to conform to the community’s aesthetic sense- a reason that is questionable to the validity of the restrictions.

12/2/2014
Irving/TX
Erik
Ms.Bradley/Nimitz High School
The towns sign ordinances no way violate the rights stated in the first amendment. The laws in place do not specifically target the rights of religious or speech freedoms. If you violate the towns laws on signs you have to comply with the rules set in place. The towns policies are to be followed and in no way interfere with the first amendment.

12/2/2014
Irving,TX
Claudia
Bradley/Nimitz
The Gilbert sign ordinance should not be considered unconstitutional because the way Reed is trying to express his speech is violating the town’s policies. The town does allow him to promote his idea of his church, but it is also limited. Since the policies don't specifically state to limit Reed’s specific religion, it would be considered content-neutral. When the town came up with the policies for signing, they did not have in mind to find a way to prevent Reed from expressing his ideas. I would agree more with the government on the situation because Reed is using public, government-owned property and if there were no limits on signing, everyone would be putting signs wherever, and whenever, they want without any type of order.

12/2/2014
Irving/TX
Colton
Bradley/Nimitz High School
I believe that the sign ordinance does not violate the constitution. Seeing how there are also other methods of publicity, the sign ordinance should not have been something even needing to be considered. Too many signs can affect the ambiance of a town and cause disturbance among the peace. Content should be determined on what the sign is publicizing. I agree with the justification of the law because there was no religious discrimination.

12/2/2014
Irving/TX
Gabriel M
Bradley/Nimitz
Yes, the Gilbert sign ordinance is constitutional. The law gives guidelines that re not content specific and are enforced on everyone. I also agree with the towns justification for the law because too much signs can make a curb or town look cluttered. Most want their town to look neat and clean thus the creation of the law.

12/1/2014
Irving/TX
Marilynn
Ms.Bradley/Nimitz
The Gilbert sign ordinance would not be considered unconstitutional.The town sign ordinance is simply setting certain boundaries on the amount of signs and time they can be up. The town is not restricting Reeds religious sign from being put up,but are enforcing their law of how many should be put up and how long they can be up. The government,setting up this law, is not harming anyone but is just setting up certain limits that apply to all those who want to put up signs.It would also be considered content-neutral, because the government is not specifically enforcing this law on religious signs,but are enforcing it to all of those who want their signs up. This is not a violation of the First Amendment because the law does not restrict anyone from expressing their freedom of religion.

12/1/2014
Irving/TX
Briana
Bradley/Nimitz
The town’s sign ordinance doesn’t violate the first amendment because the people still have free expression. Even though free expression is limited, the people of Gilbert can utilize the first amendment. Since, Good News Community Church is not targeted and all other organizations that have event signs posted are given under the same law, the ordinance should be considered content-neutral. The town sign ordinance is not discriminating against religious groups, therefore not violating the fourteenth amendment, since each category of the sign ordinance have specific rules that all of the sign users have to follow. The government justification of the law is correct, because the sign ordinance is not discriminating against any of the citizens in Gilbert and the people are not denied to their right to the first amendment but are merely limited to the extent of the use of it. The town sign ordinance is not discriminating against religious groups, therefore not violating the fourteenth amendment, since each category of the sign ordinance have specific rules that all of the sign users have to follow.

12/1/2014
Irving/Tx
Carolyn
Ms.Bradley/Nimtz
The Gilbert Sign-Ordinance is constitutional. For certain signs being displayed, there are specific laws made for the display of these signs. This does not violate first amendment rights jus because it's of religious offiliation. It all depends upon the type of signs made and content addressed within them. My father put signs up for a religious event before and took them down right after the event was over, with no violations and problems. If there is a law addressing signs, just follow it. If people aren't sure whether the signs are content-neutral or content-specific then ask. The case didn't violate first amendment rights, nor does the first amendment address anything dealing with signs.

12/1/2014
Irving/Texas
Peyton
Bradley/Nimitz
No, the Gilbert sign ordinance is not unconstitutional because it applies to everyone. It does not violate the first amendment because it still allows Reed to put up his signs, there are just strict laws as to how he can do it. This ordinance is content-neutral because even though some groups are able to have bigger signs or keep them up longer, in the end, every group is still allowed to put signs up. The town has created rules in the city's best interest and not to leave out any specific groups or go against religious affairs.

12/1/2014
Irving/TX
Colton
Bradley/Nimitz High School
I believe that the sign ordinance does not violate the constitution. Seeing how there are also other methods of publicity, the sign ordinance should not have been something even needing to be considered. Too many signs can affect the ambiance of a town and cause disturbance among the peace. Content should be determined on what the sign is publicizing. I agree with the justification of the law because there was no religious discrimination.

12/1/2014
Irving, TX
Jonathan
Mrs. Bradley Nimitz High School
Religion has always been a sensitive topic for many people over many years. In this case I strongly agree with the church because the government should have no control over these signs. How will people get any type of word around for an event that could help millions and millions of people. Also not everyone will be aware of the limits such as Reed. With this type of ordinance coming into play it discourages people expressing themselves and how they announce their events. I would determine if a sign was content- neutral by looking at the big picture. If it has a certain group or a target audience it is not a content neutral sign. So if the sign is vague and involves many or all groups of the subject then it is content neutral and shall then be allowed. So in this way the sign ordinance is constitutional to an extent.

11/30/2014
Irving/TX
Jessica
Ms. Bradley/ Nimitz High School
I would determine whether it is content-neutral or content-specific on what it is about. There would be some research done on what the occasion is for, any money spent, how it will affect the community, and ect. I agree with the church, the government should have no limits on any types of signs put around. How else would people show up to any type of events if there is a limited amount of flyers to put up? Especially if it involves religion, that is a very sensitive topic to talk about. Reed should be able to put up as many flyers as he wants and for however long to have them up too. If the government puts limits, people would not make the effort to put up anything anymore, because they are afraid they would get in trouble if they break a law that the might not know about.

11/30/2014
Irving/Texas
Flor
Bradley/Nimitz
There are mixed feelings regarding whether the Gilbert sign ordinance is constitutional or not. Every citizen is entitled to the First Amendment, but the First Amendment doesn’t necessarily entitle that every citizen can do anything they want regarding press, speech, or religion. So there are definite restrictions on what one can necessarily do. The second part of the Fourteenth Amendment states that “No state shall make laws that will take away the privileges of citizens”. But the Gilbert sign ordinance is not taking the citizen’s rights away. It is just simply reducing the number of signs and the time limit on certain issues. So regarding these points, the Gilbert sign ordinance is constitutional. It would also be content-neutral, since it is not just addressing one specific church or one specific religion to not put up their signs.

11/26/2014
Murrieta
Kailee
Jabro/Creekside
I think the ordinance is unconstitutional because we have a right to express our thoughts and ideas and there shouldn't be a limit to how many signs we can put up. If it goes against a specific group then it is content-specific because it is only not including a certain group. I agree with the church and think they should be able to keep their signs up all the time.

11/21/2014
Irving TX
Alex R
Ms.Bradley Nimitz High School
The Gilbert sign ordinance is unconstitutional. Reed should have the right to place his religious signs around the town and not have to take them down. It is okay for the town to restrict the size and amount of content on the signs. But since his signs are religious the restriction on the time of when the signs should be put up.

11/17/2014
Stoudsburg Pennsylvannia
Parkee
Mr. Hanna SJHS
No I do not think that police should be able to search your cellphone without a warrant. People have personal rights and your phone practically has everything in it. You have personal pictures, texts, and other personal items. You phone has almost all of your personal identity on it no one should be able to search it, not even the police.

11/13/2014
Stroudsburg, PA
Devin
Mr. Hanna/Stoudsburg JHS
No, this is just a show of freedom of speech. He hasn't been unconstitutional at all. I would determine by if it is about a specific topic or something random. I agree with the church, the governments decision was wrong and unjust.

Related News
Related Resources
Share