[T]he city showed that the "spectacle" created by the banners on Sept. 2, 2003, created a traffic hazard with traffic slowing, "but there is nothing that suggests it was the message" that caused the dangerous slowdown or caused police to ask the demonstrators to leave.What? Did you prefer the story that what really slowed down the Madison drivers was the message: "Homosexuality is sin." Well, the judge found the facts. He thinks they would have slowed down just as much for root beer. What are you going to do about that, Seventh Circuit?
"There's no evidence to suggest it was the message. None whatsoever," Shabaz said. "People were asked to leave (the overpasses) only because of the narrow circumstances . . . . You can't do it at rush hour. It isn't the message we (motorists) don't like, it's the fact that we can't get home on time."...
Shabaz said in his ruling Monday, "The mere fact that plaintiffs were engaged in a spectacle . . . it drew attention. You could probably have sold Old Dutch root beer and got the same attention."
१३ डिसेंबर, २००५
"You could probably have sold Old Dutch root beer and got the same attention."
Remember the case about the the anti-gay pastor who was told to remove his banners from the Beltline overpass here in Madison? I wrote about the Seventh Circuit's decision here. The case was sent back to U.S. District Judge John Shabaz, who held a one-day trial, and once again decided against Ovadal. According to the judge:
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
५ टिप्पण्या:
In Germany at traffic jam on the Autobahn is called a "Stau."
I often held that the quickest way to create a stau was to put up a sign that said "Stau ahead" (in German, of course).
Yeah, signs slow people down. Can we ban billboards during rush hour too? I'd love to see them take that tack on it.
By the way, Madison has subsequently passed a law banning all signs on the overpass, so this First Amendment problem cannot recur.
- makes sense to me, no gawking at banners hanging down from an overpass - there's enough distraction with cell phones, brats in the back seat acting up and aggressive drivers
Anybody who's been stuck in rush hour on election day because some campaign thinks it would be cute to hang signs off an overpass will sympathize with this decision. As for billboards, they belong there, they don't move, and they are intentionally trying to distract drivers. Somebody waiving a banner or putting a sign in an odd place is.
JJ: Without reading the case again to see if there are damages claimed, I think it's safe to say that this falls within the "voluntary cessation" exception to mootness. This exception is needed to keep defendants from getting out of lawsuits by changing their policy, when they can just change it right back.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा