The Court in Los Angeles distinguished an earlier decision, Schneider v. State 308 U.S. 147 (1939), which had struck an absolute prohibition of handbilling on the streets. Stevens J. contrasted that case with the facts in Los Angeles: With respect to signs posted by appellees, however, it is the tangible medium of expressing the message that has the adverse impact on the appearance of the landscape. In Schneider, an anti-littering statute could have addressed the substantive evil without prohibiting expressive activity, whereas application of the prophylactic rule actually employed gratuitously infringed upon the right of an individual to communicate directly with the willing listener. Here, the substantive evil - visual blight - is not merely a possible by-product of the activity but is created by the medium of expression itself. In contrast to Schneider, therefore, the application of the ordinance in this case responds precisely to the substantive problem which legitimately concerns the City. The ordinance curtails no more speech than is necessary to accomplish its purpose. [at 790; emphasis added.] A clear parallel may be made in this case, where “visual blight” is not a by-product of roof-top signs, but the very thing sought to be eliminated by the provision in question.
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.