[Hulk01]

Incredible.

As someone who has both drafted a federal court decision on the First Amendment (Wilson vs. Mollala School Board) and created advertising for many years, I find the court's rationale so worthy of ridicule that a word beyond "ridiculous" needs to be coined.

The objective of every creator of what is called "outdoor" (billboards are the best known form, but there are others), is to attract and hold the reader's attention.  A billboard that does not do this is a failure; and a billboard that accomplishes that goal is, according to the court's decision, "a threat to public safety."  And, for that matter, so are halter tops and sun dresses, large breasted women, and most Italian cars. 

Anything that attracts people's attention is a threat to divert their attention from something else, and that diversion certainly might result in harm.  And by the court's rationale, "attention-getting things," or at least those with words on them, are subject to restrictions by state and local governments without regard to their protection under the First Amendment.

This seems preposterous: We have the freedom to express ourselves, provided it doesn't get too much attention? 

[Hulk01]

Incredible.

As someone who has both drafted a federal court decision on the First Amendment (Wilson vs. Mollala School Board) and created advertising for many years, I find the court's rationale so worthy of ridicule that a word beyond "ridiculous" needs to be coined.

The objective of every creator of what is called "outdoor" (billboards are the best known form, but there are others), is to attract and hold the reader's attention.  A billboard that does not do this is a failure; and a billboard that accomplishes that goal is, according to the court's decision, "a threat to public safety."  And, for that matter, so are halter tops and sun dresses, large breasted women, and most Italian cars. 

Anything that attracts people's attention is a threat to divert their attention from something else, and that diversion certainly might result in harm.  And by the court's rationale, "attention-getting things," or at least those with words on them, are subject to restrictions by state and local governments without regard to their protection under the First Amendment.

This seems preposterous: We have the freedom to express ourselves, provided it doesn't get too much attention?