Bandit Signs for Good?

[JakeL]

I saw this article regarding wayfinding bandit signs on The Atlantic Cities:

Since we first heard about a series of stealth wayfinding signs appearing around Raleigh, North Carolina, several weeks ago, the project has drawn national and international attention. The BBC came to town to see the signs. NPR then ran part of the segment. People in other cities started contacting Matt Tomasulo, the grad-student mastermind behind the escapade, to figure out how to replicate it in their hometowns. In short, the project accomplished exactly what a good guerrilla campaign is supposed to: it got people buzzing (and, in this case, about the otherwise unexciting topic of walkability).

Thoughts on this? If the bandit sign bill passes, it is definitely worth the effort to create 'good' bandit signs that give back to the community that aren't get-rich-quick-schemes.

[mixiboi]

Same thing hapen in NYC, but his signs are made of metal:

New Etiquette Rules Posted Around The City: Gothamist

[raider.adam]

I saw this article regarding wayfinding bandit signs on The Atlantic Cities:

Thoughts on this? If the bandit sign bill passes, it is definitely worth the effort to create 'good' bandit signs that give back to the community that aren't get-rich-quick-schemes.

Here's the problem if there aren't rules about such postings. Who says someone then doesn't go around and as a joke put up wayfinding signs that are wrong? "This way to Temple University" and it runs out of towners into Strawberry Mansion. Or like the signs mixiboi posted where some may think they are funny, but others may find them annoying? It then gets all back to who can put things on poles and who can't?

I would assume it would be easy enough for there to be a process by Streets Dept (or L&I, whoever it is) that you can submit a sign and location to post and if it is truly a public informational, they can approve it. They could get really slick and have the request go online for a period of time so the public can protest/verify a request.

They could also have guidelines on sign size and such.

But of course if they are approved, then they aren't bandit signs either.

So I would say have a process that allows for dynamic interaction from the public and the appropriate department can act as gatekeeper.

[sharkey]

Here's the problem if there aren't rules about such postings. Who says someone then doesn't go around and as a joke put up wayfinding signs that are wrong? "This way to Temple University" and it runs out of towners into Strawberry Mansion. Or like the signs mixiboi posted where some may think they are funny, but others may find them annoying? It then gets all back to who can put things on poles and who can't?

I would assume it would be easy enough for there to be a process by Streets Dept (or L&I, whoever it is) that you can submit a sign and location to post and if it is truly a public informational, they can approve it. They could get really slick and have the request go online for a period of time so the public can protest/verify a request.

They could also have guidelines on sign size and such.

But of course if they are approved, then they aren't bandit signs either.

So I would say have a process that allows for dynamic interaction from the public and the appropriate department can act as gatekeeper.

First Amendment nightmare!

[sharkey]

Here's the problem if there aren't rules about such postings. Who says someone then doesn't go around and as a joke put up wayfinding signs that are wrong? "This way to Temple University" and it runs out of towners into Strawberry Mansion. Or like the signs mixiboi posted where some may think they are funny, but others may find them annoying? It then gets all back to who can put things on poles and who can't?

I would assume it would be easy enough for there to be a process by Streets Dept (or L&I, whoever it is) that you can submit a sign and location to post and if it is truly a public informational, they can approve it. They could get really slick and have the request go online for a period of time so the public can protest/verify a request.

They could also have guidelines on sign size and such.

But of course if they are approved, then they aren't bandit signs either.

So I would say have a process that allows for dynamic interaction from the public and the appropriate department can act as gatekeeper.

You can't have the gov't judging what info. is "valid" and what isn't. That is why the City got sued over its proposed testing of tour guides.

[raider.adam]

First Amendment nightmare!

You can't have the gov't judging what info. is "valid" and what isn't. That is why the City got sued over its proposed testing of tour guides.

I would say "it depends". If someone said "I want to donate a sign to the City that says what direction and how far from this corner is Fairmount Park" and they allow it, but disallow the person that wants to put a sign up pointing to their car dealership, I doubt it would fail the smell test of Constitutionality. I could be wrong, but I don't see it.

Either way though, I was merely tossing out off the top of my head a way to be able to leverage useful public information while holding back against some of the blight issues.

For the record, I believe the City won the suit.

[sharkey]

I would say "it depends". If someone said "I want to donate a sign to the City that says what direction and how far from this corner is Fairmount Park" and they allow it, but disallow the person that wants to put a sign up pointing to their car dealership, I doubt it would fail the smell test of Constitutionality. I could be wrong, but I don't see it.

Either way though, I was merely tossing out off the top of my head a way to be able to leverage useful public information while holding back against some of the blight issues.

For the record, I believe the City won the suit.

I don't think the City won the tour guide certification lawsuit. Anyone have a link or info on the decision?

[sharkey]

It could cause confusion as to what is a City sign advising you of a law (no littering) and what is a "private" sign simply expressing an opinion (such as the "pull up your pants"sign above.)

[raider.adam]

It could cause confusion as to what is a City sign advising you of a law (no littering) and what is a "private" sign simply expressing an opinion (such as the "pull up your pants"sign above.)

And in the scenario I described, the "pull up the pants sign" wouldn't make approval. That is why I said it would be geared towards the informational wayfinding signs in the original post.

And the City won.

Philadelphia Tour Guides - Release 8-6-09 | The Institute for Justice

[seand]

I'm as a big a flag waver for the First Amendment as anybody but I'm very dubious on the constitutional challenge to the history test for tour guides. Just because the city says you have to pass a test to get a license does not in any way limit your ability to make political speech or argue XYZ political viewpoint. It just says if you want to conduct this type of business you need to pass this type of test.

Whether its a useful thing for the city to get involved in or whether I think they are about as likely to decent, even handed job of enforcement is a whole other question. But I don't think there is any basis for First Amendment challenge to the history test for tour guides.

[Jayfar]

Philadelphia Tour Guides - Release 8-6-09 | The Institute for Justice[/url]

Only sort of, temporarily won, from what I'm reading there.

The judge determined that the city’s budget crisis made it unlikely that the law, which allows city officials to fine guides up to $300 for engaging in unauthorized talking, would be enforced “in the near future.” He dismissed the case until the city begins enforcement.

[sharkey]

And in the scenario I described, the "pull up the pants sign" wouldn't make approval. That is why I said it would be geared towards the informational wayfinding signs in the original post.

And the City won.

Philadelphia Tour Guides - Release 8-6-09 | The Institute for Justice

Read the link that you provided.The City didn't "win" the case.The judge dismissed it because the City decided not to enforce the tour guide cert. process. Courts only decide real controversies, not hypotheticals, and judges don't like to work any more than anyone else does. Since the City was not going to enforce the law (supposedly for budget reasons) the case was not ripe and the judge dismissed it.If the City ever tries to enforce thelaw, the suit can be refiled with no problem.

[raider.adam]

Read the link that you provided.The City didn't "win" the case.The judge dismissed it because the City decided not to enforce the tour guide cert. process. Courts only decide real controversies, not hypotheticals, and judges don't like to work any more than anyone else does. Since the City was not going to enforce the law (supposedly for budget reasons) the case was not ripe and the judge dismissed it.If the City ever tries to enforce thelaw, the suit can be refiled with no problem.

Yes you are correct. I had only seen it was dismissed. I didn't follow up on why it was dismissed.

[seand]

I think the crux of it is whether the city can enforce what a "tour guide" is. If you are collecting money from people to take them on something called a "tour", I'm pretty sure the City is withing its constitutional power to say you have to pass a test to get licensed for that. Its a commercial venture, not a political expression. The problem is a carriage ride could easily argue its not a "tour" and evade the fee and test and soon lots of things we might casually consider a "tour" would very carefully describing their business to evade the fee/test. So its a dumb law, easily evaded in practice but not unconstitutional.

[sharkey]

I'm as a big a flag waver for the First Amendment as anybody but I'm very dubious on the constitutional challenge to the history test for tour guides. Just because the city says you have to pass a test to get a license does not in any way limit your ability to make political speech or argue XYZ political viewpoint. It just says if you want to conduct this type of business you need to pass this type of test.

Whether its a useful thing for the city to get involved in or whether I think they are about as likely to decent, even handed job of enforcement is a whole other question. But I don't think there is any basis for First Amendment challenge to the history test for tour guides.

The problem is, history is not always cut and dry.If the City is testing you on "facts," it can deny you your right to free speech if your "facts" contradict the City'sofficial "facts." Have you ever heard "the winners write the history books?" Yes, very simple facts can be verified and maybe if the test was limited to these it would pass Constitutional muster, but there is a special protection for the 1st Am. that other parts of the Bill of Rights don't have. Its called "overbreadth," and it means that even if parts of a law are ok under the 1st Am., if any part of a law violates it the whole law gets thrown out.

Let me give you an analogy. Suppose a Southern city with a rich Civil War history decided to require all tour guides to pass a certification test. That test's first que. was to identify the armed conflict that occurred around 1865. You answer "the Civil War." WRONG. Correct answer: War of Northern Aggression. The test goes on from there to ask questions about the cause of the war (Fed. Gov't's refusal to recognize states' rights) and so on.

[sharkey]

I think the crux of it is whether the city can enforce what a "tour guide" is. If you are collecting money from people to take them on something called a "tour", I'm pretty sure the City is withing its constitutional power to say you have to pass a test to get licensed for that. Its a commercial venture, not a political expression. The problem is a carriage ride could easily argue its not a "tour" and evade the fee and test and soon lots of things we might casually consider a "tour" would very carefully describing their business to evade the fee/test. So its a dumb law, easily evaded in practice but not unconstitutional.

What is the guide doing on the tour? He is speaking to his customers about the surroundings, directly conveying information. Its about as pure speech as you can get. If the 1st Am. doesn't cover this, what does it cover?

[sharkey]

What is the guide doing on the tour? He is speaking to his customers about the surroundings, directly conveying information. Its about as pure speech as you can get. If the 1st Am. doesn't cover this, what does it cover?

First of all, even commercial speech has 1st Am. protection' its just not as broad as that for noncommercial. Second, just because the speaker earns money in the endeavor does not make the speech commercial; the subject matter of the speech must be commercial. An editorial in the Daily News is not commercial speech solely because the Daily News charges for its paper and takes advertising and is in business to turn a profit (although it may not be turning a profit recently)

[sharkey]

What is the guide doing on the tour? He is speaking to his customers about the surroundings, directly conveying information. Its about as pure speech as you can get. If the 1st Am. doesn't cover this, what does it cover?

Yes, the City could regulate the tour in the sense that the PPA regulates taxi drivers---- ques. like "How would you get from Ind. Hall to Fort Mifflin?" That is not what the City wanted to regulate. The City wanted to regulate what info. the guide gave to the customer about the City.

[raider.adam]

I think the crux of it is whether the city can enforce what a "tour guide" is. If you are collecting money from people to take them on something called a "tour", I'm pretty sure the City is withing its constitutional power to say you have to pass a test to get licensed for that. Its a commercial venture, not a political expression. The problem is a carriage ride could easily argue its not a "tour" and evade the fee and test and soon lots of things we might casually consider a "tour" would very carefully describing their business to evade the fee/test. So its a dumb law, easily evaded in practice but not unconstitutional.

The problem is, history is not always cut and dry.If the City is testing you on "facts," it can deny you your right to free speech if your "facts" contradict the City'sofficial "facts." Have you ever heard "the winners write the history books?" Yes, very simple facts can be verified and maybe if the test was limited to these it would pass Constitutional muster, but there is a special protection for the 1st Am. that other parts of the Bill of Rights don't have. Its called "overbreadth," and it means that even if parts of a law are ok under the 1st Am., if any part of a law violates it the whole law gets thrown out.

Let me give you an analogy. Suppose a Southern city with a rich Civil War history decided to require all tour guides to pass a certification test. That test's first que. was to identify the armed conflict that occurred around 1865. You answer "the Civil War." WRONG. Correct answer: War of Northern Aggression. The test goes on from there to ask questions about the cause of the war (Fed. Gov't's refusal to recognize states' rights) and so on.

In reality, it isn't even this complicated because it is safe to say the City test won't be relevant to any of the tour guides because there is no way they know what the tour guides are going to talk about.

For instance, let's take Big Bus Tours. Is the City going to look at their tour route and design a test that questions them on the names of every building along the way? What about if they talk about the skyscrapers in the distance?

Or how about the Ride the Ducks that take a different route? Will they have the same test or a different test?

The reality is the City can design a test of information that they think tour guides should know, but it in no way means it is the information the tour guides are actually talking about. The likely result will be that they will test to make sure tour guides know about some of the main historical info, but that is probably about it.

Now, again this is off the top of my head, but it would seem the better solution would be to setup a voluntary certification process. Let a tour guide agency/person submit their route and script. City verifies its authenticity and that person/group gets to stick a big ol' "Philadelphia History Approved" label on their brochures and vehicles. It would also have a web address for people to complain about bad information which the City would look into and could pull their certification.

That would seem to be the better way to approach it.

[sharkey]

There is also the issue of prior restraint. Even in a situation where a particular type of speech is not protected by the 1st Am., the gov't cannot take steps ahead of time to keep you from promulgating that speech. It can punish you afterwards, but can't "screen" you ahead of time. As an example, obscenity (whatever that is by local standards) is not protected by the 1st Am., and a gov't can pass a valid law punishing someone who prints and distributes an obscene circular. The gov't cannot,however, require all people who want to print and distribute something to provide that item to its inspectors ahead of time so that they can screen it.