The Boston Globe ran a story today about longtime Newton political campaigner Martina Jackson run in with city over lawn signs. The city has by-laws in place that dictate how long and when political lawns can be displayed on a resident’s lawn.
Last year the city received a complaint about Jackson’s signs and which include messages supporting Black Lives Matter and welcoming immigrants, as well as backing politicians such as Joe Biden, Kamala Harris, and Ed Markey. The signs violated a local ordinance and had to go or she and her husband could face $300/per fine and a criminal complaint.
Under Newton bylaws all political signs must be removed within 30 days of an election.
Jackson and her husband sued the city and the city has since rescinded the complaint after getting legal opinion that the city’s political sign ordinance is unconstitutional and a violation of free speech.
So if I’m understanding this issue correctly, Martina Jackson won the day, the city backed down and let the signs stay, but she is still suing to “clear her name”? Really?
Honestly, I’m not a huge fan of folks leaving out election signs, some of the campaigns aren’t great about picking them up, and they look ugly after a while. But ok, the city law department rescinded the fine/removal requirement due to free speech concerns. Fair enough.
So why sue the city? Anyone else find this to be a waste of time and resources? Peter Harrington states in the article that “the Jacksons have a right to have their named cleared.” Cleared of what? Of violating a sign ordinance that is no longer being enforced?
Feels like all of these folks, who clearly have strong political beliefs, would be far better served volunteering their time, energy, and funds to benefit the common good instead of engaging in this self-righteous nonsense. The city let the signs stay. Take the win.
And for the rest of us, please consider taking down the political signs after the election. Or maybe just limiting them to folks currently running for election. Or maybe just one or two. You know, be reasonable. Your neighbors will thank you!
At least this clears the way for year round “lets go Brandon” yard signs
Or perhaps we can bring back the “Any functioning adult” presidential campaign signs…since the current president also is not a functioning adult (albeit for a different reason).
OK folks, remember Newton topics only
I saw those signs in many Newton lawns.
I was making a joke, come on Jerry!
No worries Frank D. I just saw two back to back comments bringing in national politics and wanted to make sure it didn’t quickly spiral up into a food fight about presidents.
Carry on 😉
I do think Bugek and Frank D are correct though. I’d imagine we will see an increase in year round political signs of all stripes. Does this now mean that campaigns need to start even earlier getting their sign game going? Ugh….
I don’t understand how this law works for signs like “Black Lives Matter”, which are not tied to a particular election. Or did the city just ask her to remove candidate endorsements?
I had the same “really” reaction as @Fig. Seems like suing to clear Ms. Jackson’s name is a bit over the top. It’s just a bit absurd. I agree seems like time would be better spent in a more productive manner. I feel like election related signs have a specific shelf life and don’t add beauty to a yard.
@Fig
What an odd response. The ordinance is clearly unconstitutional. How about the City do the simple quick thing and change it?
The City has been told that it’s unconstitutional, other towns have been ruled against and the City started wasting time enforcing the oedinance. Why should the Jackson’s have to waste THEIR time, which they did, defending their rights to expression?
How in the world is your main point criticizing them? I’m embarrassed for out city government. Incompetent governance. Defiant, unconstitutional, enforcement. The city denied their appeal, did not acknowledge the First Amendment issues. Think about that. Our government just said no- we can’t bother. Even though they are clearly wrong.
Why can’t the city do the simple thing and obvious thing and back down?
Embarrassing. This should be easy.
Fair enough Alec. They made a choice to sue the city about an issue that was already settled in their favor, and to you and others they are fighting the good fight. I just find it to be a complete waste of time and resources on all sides. I’m sure the city could have handled it better and probably should have. Doesn’t mean that this was necessary. And certainly doesn’t mean I’m going to throw praise their way.
I just wouldn’t have made this my particular cause to fight once the city allowed me to keep the signs up. We all need to pick our battles though, and clearly they were personally invested. I’m somewhat jealous that they have the time and energy to spend on this pursuit…
PS Jerry- not a lawyer, but I don’t think you represented the situation correctly. The article states that the Jacksons said the removal order was rescinded, but implies the notice of violation remains. They appealed for a reason, and it wasn’t because the City took everything back already.
@Alec Wilson – I’m not a lawyer either and my post is a very simple summary of what I read in the Globe article. I’d refer readers to that article for the details. I found some of the details in that article a bit ambiguous as to what happened when and exactly what the legal situation in regards to the Jacksons is now.
GREAT
WE ONLY PUT OUR
HAPPY COLUMBUS DAY
SIGN
OUT FOR THE MONTH OF OCTOBER
NOW IT WILL BE UP YEAR ROUND!!!!!!!!!!!
Wow Joe, you’re totally owning those progressives. What a show of force!
I first became aware of this lawn sign ordinance when I ran for public office in 2005. I’ve commented about it many times on Village 14. The City of Newton has been well aware that this ordinance is a First Amendment violation of the highest order because it infringes on political speech, which enjoys the highest level of protection.
Rather than remove a law that’s been ruled unconstitutional countless times in other jurisdictions, the City deliberately left this law on the books. It’s easy to argue that they did so to protect incumbents from challenge and criticism. It is completely unacceptable that public officials would knowingly leave any law on the books after clear knowledge that it was unconstitutional. It is even less acceptable that they would actually try to enforce it to silence political thought.
Martina Jackson is suing the City to protect the First Amendment rights of all of us, because our public officials don’t give a damn about violating people’s rights. The criticism of her on this thread is completely unfounded, and I support her lawsuit 100%.
Mike:
“silence political thought?” That seems a bit dramatic my friend. A neighbor complained to the city because multiple political signs were left up. I’m not even sure that was due to a disagreement in the Jacksons politics, lots of folks just find political signs to be kinda ugly once the election is over. This wasn’t the case of posting a sign too soon, or trying to restrict speech during a hotly contested election cycle. These were leftover signs. The city in the end let them keep them up…
I get the free speech argument. I don’t get the hero worship or the drama.
fig–
Not “political thought.” Political speech! Newton’s lawn sign ordinance cuts right to the heart of the First Amendment.
The neighbor’s motivation is irrelevant. The City of Newton has an unconstitutional ordinance on the books. It’s been known to be unconstitutional for years, yet it’s remained the law in Newton. Personally, I believe that enforcing a law that the government knows to be unconstitutional should be a criminal offense.
Enforcement of the sign ordinance was unquestionably a violation of Martina Jackson’s First Amendment rights. When the City of Newton finally acknowledged that to be the case, Martina could have been selfish and left it to the next wrongfully charged person to fight the same battle. Instead she was selfless, and stood up for the free speech rights of us all. I applaud her for that!
Mike, I was quoting “political thought” from your post…
Also, do you support allowing billboard size signs on properties? I’m talking 10 foot by 10 foot signs. Or larger.
How about signs with neon lights?
Signs with hate speech?
Communities have some degree of leeway to make reasonable rules applied across all protected classes. Clearly the city now feels that asking folks to remove signs after an election doesn’t meet the rationale under the City of Ladue case that went before the Supreme Court. But I’m guessing the size and form of the speech is still under city review.
My point here is that if I thought the city was trying to limit the Jackson’s speech or thought, I’d understand your praise. But the city didn’t care who was on the sign. It wasn’t trying to restrict election speech or all political signs like in Missouri. It just cares about how long they remained up and how ugly it looked. At some point, that matters too for most communities, otherwise we’d be ok with neon lights and billboards at every house…
Jacksons certainly have the right for their day in court. But I certainly don’t have to praise them.
Hmm . Neon? Billboards?
Maybe that can be a new bigger and better canvas for my next home project.
@fig–
Apologies. My earlier post should have read, the ordinance suppresses the expression of political thought. Which is of course a reference to free speech.
You mentioned a hypothetical question about billboard sized lawn signs. In my layman’s opinion, it would depend on the message. If it’s a political message, it is certainly protected from the government. I believe there is case law addressing this very issue. A neighbor likely has some recourse by filing a civil lawsuit over the size.
You also asked me a couple of other hypotheticals about “hate speech,” which I believe is already addressed by some different laws that have been found to be constitutional.
But let’s skip hypotheticals and jump right to another case where the City of Newton suppresses free speech by unconstitutionally regulating signage. Do you know why none of the three cannabis shops in Newton display an actual cannabis leaf on their exterior signs? Go ahead and take a guess!
Mike, I’m going to propose Striar’s Law, in the same vein of Godwin’s Law. How long can a conversation take place on Village 14 before someone mentions cannabis…
Also, I didn’t know that, and have no idea why a cannabis leaf would be illegal on a sign. But not much involving cannabis regulation makes sense to me these days.
Ok, I’m done posting on this particular thread. I look forward to next election cycle when the signs start to be put up in May and stay up through the snow! We can use them to measure the snowfall during the next noreaster!
Jerry:
I’m planning on the spotlight and extra large bill board for next year. LOL.
I do wonder what would have happened if someone had just asked the Jacksons politely in person to take down the signs. One of my neighbors did that with me on some decorations I had up long past Halloween. I appreciated knowing what they thought.
Now if they got the CITY involved, lawsuits for sure. Lawsuits for YEARS.
If I may be pedestrian on the sign issue, I’m sorry to see the ordinance go because most of them are ugly and look trashy after a while, and make the city look trashy. Take a drive to NH or Maine where sign ordinances aren’t a thing. Signs are all over the place, look ugly, frankly to no good end.
I hope campaigns will continue to take responsibility for taking signs down after an election or people who have them up will take them down ASAP after an election.