And, actually, billboards are protected as free speech as well; a number of interested parties have successfully fought city anti-billboard laws on free-speech grounds.
The right to purchase a billboard and display a message is protected as free speech. Most notably used in san francisco during a hotly contested race for mayor to get around zoning laws. Not as a justification for defacing private property.
Most anti-billboard laws are in place to limit eyesores, improve traffic safety, and keep developments in scale with their surroundings. If a community has been prevented from eliminating such eyesores due lobbying efforts by well-funded commercial interests and the mistaken notion that corporations and commercial entities are "persons" with free-speech rights, as is the case in Portland, than I see no reason to object to a neighborhood members modifying a particularly offensive billboard in an attempt to make the community undesirable for a capitalist invasion.
Of course, I've always been a fan of allowing more information into public discussions, even if that requires acceptance of unconventional means (like grafitti) to give otherwise-underrepresented elements a voice.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2006-01-29 08:36 am (UTC)I figure if billboards are protected as free speech, then modifying billboards should be, too.
no subject
Date: 2006-01-29 08:56 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-01-29 09:03 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-01-29 09:46 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-01-29 08:29 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-01-29 09:19 pm (UTC)Of course, I've always been a fan of allowing more information into public discussions, even if that requires acceptance of unconventional means (like grafitti) to give otherwise-underrepresented elements a voice.