4 ms·

> distracting video billboards in general should be banned for safety reasons My state bans all billboards. They're thought pollution. https://movia.media/mov

• mxxx 5y ago
  That’s amazing. They’re getting ridiculous in the big cities in Australia. You can’t avoid them.
  • ace2358 5y ago
    I was in Byron Bay town last Saturday night. I saw a truck with three massive screen billboards driving around (advertising the new alcohol deliver service by Dan Murphys’s...). I couldn’t believe how bright it was driving behind it. How that is legal is beyond me! Last thing the country needs is more alcohol. Advertising in Australia is getting out of hand.
• Dig1t 5y ago
  WTF that is awesome, I had no idea this was a thing!
• slownews45 5y ago
  Fantastic. They have this huge bright video billboard where I drive - at night it is ridiculously distracting. I have no idea how they pass muster on road safety rules.
• datameta 5y ago
  This law holds in Alaska, Hawaii, Maine, and Vermont. 3 out of the 4 are outermost states of the U.S., and the other is close to being so. Perhaps since there isn't much interstate traffic going through these states and their state populations are low, there was not so great of an incentive for advertisers to lobby against such laws banning highway ads.
• throwawaysea 5y ago
  How does that not run afoul of first amendment rights? For example if I wanted to advertise my political view on a sign mounted on my land, would that really be something the state Dan block?
  • maxwell 5y ago
    They're state laws. It's a 9th/10th Amendment issue. A federal billboard ban would certainly seem to violate the 1st. A ban in California would seem illegal as well, due to the affirmative right to free speech contained in the California Constitution (see Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins). Here in Maine, on-premises signs are allowed but have strict limitations: https://legislature.maine.gov/statutes/23/title23sec1914.html https://legislature.maine.gov/statutes/23/title23sec1914.htm...
    • throwawaysea 5y ago
      But the supremacy clause (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supremacy_Clause https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supremacy_Clause) prevents state laws from preempting federal laws, including the constitution.
      • maxwell 5y ago
        Yeah, you're right. It looks like sign bans are usually unconstitutional when content-based, where the substance of what is being communicated is taken into account (e.g. bans on only commercial signs), but generally hold up if content-neutral and based on reasonable factors, such as safety or aesthetics. See Reed v. Town of Gilbert (content-based ban struck down) versus Scenic Arizona v. City of Phoenix (content-neutral and safety-based ban on electronic signs upheld). https://www.scenic.org/sign-control/billboard-laws/important-legal-cases/ https://www.scenic.org/sign-control/billboard-laws/important...
  • soco 5y ago
    If the sign throws fireworks at passers-by, yes. Because the point of a billboard ban is not their contents, but the distraction they cause. It would be enough to tune them down and nobody would mind but yeah, losing perceived ad revenue is somehow never the first thought.