Can election signs be banned?

[Doctordestiny]

I suggested this to a city alderman and he told me that a municipality cannot legally ban signs because of some freedom of expression thing, or the right for election candidates to attempt to get their names out there. Somehow I don't buy this? Can a municipality legally ban election signs?

[alltherage]

Originally Posted by Doctordestiny

I suggested this to a city alderman and he told me that a municipality cannot legally ban signs because of some freedom of expression thing, or the right for election candidates to attempt to get their names out there. Somehow I don't buy this? Can a municipality legally ban election signs?

No doubt... the city looks bloody awful with all that crap everywhere.

If freedom of expression is OK then why cant any other businesses advertise this way? Or can they?

Maybe we should put up ridiculous signs everywhere that spout total crap like "9/11 was a conspiracy!"

[Weiser Wonder]

Can elections be banned? We should look into that.

[HotHotHeat]

It's democracy in action. Putting up with ugly signs for 2 months every 4 years is hardly a reason to complain if you ask me.

[Sluggo]

Good luck getting politicians to go against their own source of employment. It's sad that the herd mentality still plays a role in getting these clowns elected.

[REDVAN]

DESS is that you...

Can`t handle election signs to let`s eradicate them like all the bears and dogs.

[Jimmy Stang]

Signs on public property are against a local bylaw. It's just that election signs are given an exemption.

I'm not the type to want to ban things, but I would be happy in a world that was without election signage on public property. Aside from being ugly and wasteful, not being able to plaster a boulevard with signs might encourage people to look at the issues and not who's got the biggest sign army.

But election signs are here to stay... I don't see that changing any time soon.

[Mazrim]

I'm okay with election signs, they're temporary. I'm not okay with a freaking pyramid of McIver signs stacked 3 high in front of the voting station I went to today. Annoying and ugly.

[Crazy Bacon Legs]

Freedom of speech is a fundamental part of a free and democratic society. It's in s. 2 of our Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Political speech has always been the most jealously guarded form of speech in a free society. I cannot recall the case name, but if I remember correctly, there was a case (Quebec I think) where exactly such a ban (or restriction) was attempted and it was struck down by the courts.

I for one think that political speech is something that should absolutely, unequivocally, be absoltute. Except, of course, slanderous or libelous speech, incitement to violence, etc.

Plus, election signs are up for a wee bit, and then they're gone. Nobody has to lose any sleep over them.

[alltherage]

I have no problem with the signs themselves, but damn there are waaaaayyy too many of them this election. I guess that's what happens when you have what, 16 mayoral candidates? + Aldermen, + School Trustees...

I agree its nothing to fuss over, but this year was seriously nuts!

[Jimmy Stang]

I'm not seeing the connection between election signs on public property and freedom of speech. (I said before that I wouldn't be in favour of a ban anyway). Everyone would still have a right to campaign, vote, promote, preach, dissent, etc. the candidates. We just wouldn't have public property used for signage.

If I put up a sign along a busy road promoting my beliefs (or business, of course), outside of election time, it would run afoul of the sign bylaw. Was my freedom of speech infringed upon? Is the bylaw unconstitutional then?

[Zee]

I would like to see a ban on election signs on public property. It's a friggin mess.

They can probably be banned, because signs are only allowed X number of days before the election, and must be takes down after.

I have no problem with signs on people's lawns.

[bizaro86]

Could we also ban elections? They create a lot of extra traffic near the school, and it adds to my commute. Also newspapers, sometimes people leave them on the train, creating unsightly clutter. And maybe independent thought, some people are out there thinking thoughts I don't approve of, and I want it stopped!

[Crazy Bacon Legs]

Some cases you can peruse to see how the Court has reasoned this sort of issue in the past:

Ramsden v. Peterborough [1993] 2 S.C.R. 1084 - a case not even dealing with political speech, but whether a ban on postering on public property constituted a violation of s. 2 Charter rights. Spoiler: it did.

Beaumier v. City of Brampton [1999] O.J. 4407 - Whether placement of a sign critical of an insurance company and subsequent charges constituted a violation of s. 2 rights. Again, the Court found that the bylaw was overly broad and failed to meet the s. 1 test as it did not have a minimal impact.

Obviously, if the Court believes these cases to be violations of fundamental freedoms (as they were not even political speech), any law prohibiting election signs would be doomed.

I'm not saying the signs aren't annoying in some way, just that they cannot be banned during an election cycle.

[alltherage]

Originally Posted by bizaro86

Could we also ban elections? They create a lot of extra traffic near the school, and it adds to my commute. Also newspapers, sometimes people leave them on the train, creating unsightly clutter. And maybe independent thought, some people are out there thinking thoughts I don't approve of, and I want it stopped!

If enough people felt this way, they probably would hahaha

[Bertuzzied]

I'd rather them be electronic. Like on CP here. I wouldn't mind if they had something that over rode popup blockers and gave me 100 popups every click. Its only once for 2 months every 4 years. hehhee

hmmmmm that would still be less annoying than reading the Crawford and Jeremy whining

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Jimmy Stang

I'm not seeing the connection between election signs on public property and freedom of speech. (I said before that I wouldn't be in favour of a ban anyway). Everyone would still have a right to campaign, vote, promote, preach, dissent, etc. the candidates. We just wouldn't have public property used for signage.

If I put up a sign along a busy road promoting my beliefs (or business, of course), outside of election time, it would run afoul of the sign bylaw. Was my freedom of speech infringed upon? Is the bylaw unconstitutional then?

Yes. No.

[Jimmy Stang]

Originally Posted by Crazy Bacon Legs

Some cases you can peruse to see how the Court has reasoned this sort of issue in the past:

Ramsden v. Peterborough [1993] 2 S.C.R. 1084 - a case not even dealing with political speech, but whether a ban on postering on public property constituted a violation of s. 2 Charter rights. Spoiler: it did.

Beaumier v. City of Brampton [1999] O.J. 4407 - Whether placement of a sign critical of an insurance company and subsequent charges constituted a violation of s. 2 rights. Again, the Court found that the bylaw was overly broad and failed to meet the s. 1 test as it did not have a minimal impact.

Obviously, if the Court believes these cases to be violations of fundamental freedoms (as they were not even political speech), any law prohibiting election signs would be doomed.

I'm not saying the signs aren't annoying in some way, just that they cannot be banned during an election cycle.

Interesting. Cases like that make me wonder if Calgary's sign bylaw would be able to withstand a challenge.

I am curious to see how quickly all of these sings are taken down following the election. It seems like there are far more signs than any other election (at any level) in recent memory. Understandably, federal and provincial politics are generally not very tight around these parts, and the level of signage reflects that. And our previous civic election had an incumbent mayor, which made the race a lot less interesting.

[Jimmy Stang]

Originally Posted by valo403

Yes. No.

Forgive my lack of legal knowledge, but (and this is an honest question) how can the city have a bylaw that infringes freedom of speech?

Personally, I don't want to see signs all over the place as they are an eyesore and the city has to use resources to remove them, etc.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Jimmy Stang

Forgive my lack of legal knowledge, but (and this is an honest question) how can the city have a bylaw that infringes freedom of speech?

Personally, I don't want to see signs all over the place as they are an eyesore and the city has to use resources to remove them, etc.

Rights aren't an unlimited thing, they can be limited where the need arises so long as the means don't go too far. It's the reason that it's illegal to yell fire in a crowded theatre, to use the most classic example.

The reason that the city can prevent the average person from putting up signs on public property and can't do the same for election signs comes down to the type of speech at issue. Political speech garners an extra level of protection, so any laws that would hinder it are going to need to show a greater need and be even more narrowly tailored to avoid over-reaching. The links Crazy Bacon Legs (excellent name btw) provided go into greater detail. I've always found this stuff to be among the most interesting topics in law.