Talk:Billboard/Archives/2019
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Billboard. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
"Tobacco billboards replaced"
Billboards made the news in America when, in the tobacco settlement of 1999, all cigarette billboards were replaced with anti-smoking messages.
I am from Ohio and I drove past one of these barns every single day until I moved. I bet it is still there, advertising chewing tobacco. Clearly not all of them were replaced and I can find you a counterexample on 56 in October when I drive back to Athens. B5429671 (talk) 09:59, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
- Barns aren't billboards though. I'm not familiar with US laws on this, but I bet you there's a legal difference between a billboard (a commercial venture, as an advertising channel and nothing else) vs. a barn (an agricultural storage building, where the owner has a free hand in how they paint it). Andy Dingley (talk) 10:14, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
Under laws, needs a section on constitutionality. Billboard bans are censorship of political speech.
Under laws, needs a section on constitutionality. Billboard bans are censorship of political speech.
they raise issues under the first amendment and under state constitutions. also, when existng billbords are banned, this raises issues under the taking clause of the 5th amendment.
maybe i'll write this up someday. i made a few notes: i wonder whether there have been cases on whether these bans violate their state constitutions. bans on billboards, books, tshirts, etc., raise serious constitutional issues. https://www.commercialappeal.com/story/news/courts/2017/04/03/memphis-judge-throws-out-state-billboard-act/99984504/
https://www.acluak.org/en/press-releases/aclu-alaska-fighting-your-free-speech-not-billboards
50.90.158.23 (talk) 17:46, 27 September 2019 (UTC)robbin stewart, gtbear@gmail.com
- You'll need WP:RS sourcing to substantiate that though. Then those RS will have to have argued a plausible case that there is a constitutional case here. The ACLU Alaska link you posted is a good start, but they don't seem (unsurprisingly) to be agreeing with your simple statement. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:03, 27 September 2019 (UTC)