• if the purpose of this sign restriction is to limit traffic distractions, then why distinguish between self-owned trucks, and third party trucks?
  • Underinclusive.
• The government has a legitimate interest in regulating the non-communicative aspects of billboards, but the first and 14th amendment prevent restricting the communicative aspect of billboards.
• Preventing distractions and improving, the aesthetic of the city are substantial government interests.
• Regulations regarding commercial speech are subject to intermediate, not strict, scrutiny
• The ordinance cannot be deemed content neutral restriction on time, place or manner, because it is not viewpoint neutral.

Powerpoint

• San Diego enacted an ordinance which imposed substantial prohibitions on outdoor advertising displays within the city.
• The stated purpose of the ordinance is "to eliminate hazards to pedestrians and motorists brought about by distracting sign displays" and "to preserve and improve the appearance of the City."
• This case should remind you of the case Railway Express where NY banned advertising on the side of trucks as a traffic distraction. But not advertising on trucks related to the trucks’ own business.
• The San Diego ordinance permitted commercial advertising on the sites of the businesses itself (obviously)., but forbids other commercial advertising AND noncommercial advertising using fixed-structure signs.
• Unless permitted by 1 of the ordinance's 12 specified exceptions, such as temporary political campaign signs. Companies engaged in outdoor advertising brought suit to enjoin enforcement of the ordinance.
• The Court held that the Ordinance was unconstitutional on its face. As with other media of communication, the government has legitimate interests in controlling the noncommunicative aspects of billboards.
• But the First and Fourteenth Amendments foreclose similar interests in controlling the communicative aspects of billboards.
• Because regulation of the noncommunicative aspects of a medium often impinges to some degree on the communicative aspects, the courts must reconcile those two interests.
• Insofar as it regulates commercial speech, the ordinance meets the constitutional requirements of Central Hudson.
• Improving traffic safety and the appearance of the city are substantial governmental goals.
• The ordinance directly serves these goals, and is no broader than necessary to accomplish such ends. However, the city's general ban on signs carrying noncommercial advertising is invalid under the First and Fourteenth Amendments.