This article examines the evolving law of sign and billboard regulations, with particular attention to the dual concerns noted by the Court in City of Ladue v. Gilleo of restricting "too much" speech and restricting "too little." It will address three general issues surrounding the permissible limits of sign and billboard regulation. The article begins by addressing Ladue's concern regarding regulations that restrict speech too much. In particular, it examines the extent to which a municipality must accommodate signs or billboards. A second area of concern is the permissible limit of content-neutral yet underinclusive restrictions on signs and billboards. The third and final area of examination is the extent to which municipalities can create content-based distinctions in regulation. Part II of the article first examines the First Amendment framework, focusing on time, place, and manner regulations of speech and the commercial speech doctrine. Part III examines the decisions in which the Supreme Court has addressed restrictions on signs: Linmark Associates v. Township of Willingboro, Metromedia, Inc. v. City of San Diego, Members of City Council v. Taxpayers for Vincent, and City of Ladue v. Gilleo, synthesizing the Court's current approach to sign and billboard regulation. Parts IV, V, and VI address the issues.
Sign Regulation after Ladue: Examining the Evolving Limits of First Amendment Protection,
74 Neb. L. Rev.
Available at: http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/nlr/vol74/iss1/3