3 ms·

Signs are ugly, but I don't think it's right to tell people they can't have a sign on their property. Property rights and freedom of speech are worth tolerating

Signs are ugly, but I don't think it's right to tell people they can't have a sign on their property. Property rights and freedom of speech are worth tolerating a bit of eyesore.

ryeights 5y ago
Disagree. We have regulations for noise levels emitting from people’s private property, for example, for the sake of public interest.
- distribot 5y ago
  A person shouldn't be able to have signage above their business to indicate what it is, the phone number, etc? Not billboards, but literally a sign that says "Johnny's Bakery"
  - ryeights 5y ago
    This seems a bit disingenuous. It's an advertising ban, not a ban on any and all forms of signage. In the pictures of Sao Paulo you can clearly see that businesses still have small signs out front, presumably with the name of the business on them.
kube-system 5y ago
We frequently limit property rights and speech when it pollutes, disturbs, or otherwise negatively affects others. Is this a limit on property rights or an expansion of viewshed rights? It all depends on perspective.
taurath 5y ago
Note that there currently exists a line that prevents auditory distractions - the farm on the side of the road can put up signs but they can’t blast music or AM Radio from a loudspeaker. IMO it’s still about as distracting to the senses. I think the real difference is a whole generation who is used to linear TV has convinced themselves they can somehow tune it out. This isn’t true, but they’re much more likely to be against restrictions since it “doesn’t effect them” that much.
appleflaxen 5y ago
Does advertising (as a form of speech) have any societal value? If not then I think it's reasonable to restrict (time, place, and manner restrictions are recognized as being consistent with 1st A). But maybe you can think of some value I can't.
dTal 5y ago
Excuse me, some photons appear to be leaking off your property and onto mine.

Signs are ugly, but I don't think it's right to tell people they can't have a sign on their property. Property rights and freedom of speech are worth tolerating a bit of eyesore.

ryeights 5y ago

Disagree. We have regulations for noise levels emitting from people’s private property, for example, for the sake of public interest.

distribot 5y ago
A person shouldn't be able to have signage above their business to indicate what it is, the phone number, etc? Not billboards, but literally a sign that says "Johnny's Bakery"
- ryeights 5y ago
  This seems a bit disingenuous. It's an advertising ban, not a ban on any and all forms of signage. In the pictures of Sao Paulo you can clearly see that businesses still have small signs out front, presumably with the name of the business on them.

kube-system 5y ago

We frequently limit property rights and speech when it pollutes, disturbs, or otherwise negatively affects others. Is this a limit on property rights or an expansion of viewshed rights? It all depends on perspective.

taurath 5y ago

Note that there currently exists a line that prevents auditory distractions - the farm on the side of the road can put up signs but they can’t blast music or AM Radio from a loudspeaker. IMO it’s still about as distracting to the senses. I think the real difference is a whole generation who is used to linear TV has convinced themselves they can somehow tune it out. This isn’t true, but they’re much more likely to be against restrictions since it “doesn’t effect them” that much.

appleflaxen 5y ago

Does advertising (as a form of speech) have any societal value? If not then I think it's reasonable to restrict (time, place, and manner restrictions are recognized as being consistent with 1st A). But maybe you can think of some value I can't.

dTal 5y ago

Excuse me, some photons appear to be leaking off your property and onto mine.