Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
Clearwater, Florida businessman Herb Quintero spent $500,000 renovating his bait and tackle shop and the property it's on, including commissioning a fish mural on the side of the building. Though the mural contains no text, the city of Clearwater determined he needed a billboard permit, because the subject matter is related to his business. They began fining him $130 for each day he left the mural uncovered.
So Quintero responded (rather awesomely) by covering the mural with a banner depicting the First Amendment. All of which sets up this beautiful line from a local news report of the dustup:
Meanwhile, the city's legal department is looking to see what, if anything, it can do about the First Amendment banner.Thanks to Dick Nimmons for the link.
Comments
If he can work Xenu and a few clams into the mural somehow, it becomes protected religious speech.
Posted by: Pohranicni Straze | January 14, 2009 12:24 AM
I guess in this case the city is in the wrong, why should the amount he used to renovate his business, or the fact that there is no text be significant?
A billboard surely isn't defined by having text? I've seen plenty of billboards, even here in Denmark, where there are very few compared to the US, with only pictures. For instance a Ronald McDonald pointing to a nearby McDonalds. The newest Mazda cruising on a mountain road, santa drinking from a Coca Cola shaped bottle etc.
In each case it would have to be a judgement call as to whether its a billboard or not.
And by the way who gives a shit that he had an artist make the mural, this has no bearing on whether its advertising or not. Artists make ads all the time, in fact that's how a lot of artists pay their rent.
Posted by: Soren | January 14, 2009 2:47 AM
I see what you're saying, Soren, but I think you're missing the point a little bit.
A Billboard's primary purpose is to advertise a product, service or idea. The mural doesn't advertising his business, it's simply pictures of fish. Would it be OK if it were pictures of jellyfish, sea urchins, starfish, seahorses and the like (not generally sold to be eaten in the US, I believe)?
If I own a car-yard selling late model Japanese cars and had a large sign out the front depicting a gleaming 1963 Corvette Stingray, would that be advertising?
I don't know, although I suspect not. -DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | January 14, 2009 3:55 AM
Based on the description, the fact that the mural is on the building seems, TO ME, to exempt it from being a billboard, on the grounds that, well, it's on the building.
Clearly, if the mural was on a billboard by the side of the road somewhere away from the business, nobody would think twice about him being required to pay. But the fact it's both on the building itself and on the property seems to me to be a cause for questioning.
Posted by: Michael Ralston | January 14, 2009 7:41 AM
What about all those people who paint ads for Jesus on their buildings? Can we fine them too?
Posted by: Uzza | January 14, 2009 8:09 AM
The First Amendment bit is pretty cynical. The issue here is over whether it falls under a very constitutional time, place and manner restriction.
Posted by: Morris Hattrick | January 14, 2009 9:16 AM
Michael Ralston: As to the side of the building being exempt, I think that is where billboards started and only much later progressed to the eyesores we have today so I'm not sure how much that aspect may count.
OTOH, I think that since it is NOT direct advertising (just a picture) and NOT (I suppose) offered for sale to another off-site user, he ought to be exempt.
It surely depends on how the laws for such adverts are written. Does a church billboard out front with the week's scripture message count? Who decides? I do hope Herb beats city hall on this...
Posted by: Mike | January 14, 2009 9:29 AM
Posted by: Taz | January 14, 2009 10:04 AM
Taz,
Maybe if he sells too much First Amendment, they could end up in trouble. ;-)
Posted by: Mike | January 14, 2009 10:11 AM
The following thoughts spring to mind:
1. Is the city of Clearwater really incapable of distinguishing a building from a billboard?
2. What the hell is a billboard permit, and why should somebody need one anyway? I can imagine requiring one in order to put a billboard up, but even that sounds fishy (sorry) considering that if it's your land, presumably should you be able to put a billboard on it without anyone's permission.
Posted by: Gretchen | January 14, 2009 12:12 PM
Let's keep in mind that "billboard" may, for the city of Clearwater, have a legal definition that refers to size, rather than to physical structure. I.e., I can easily imagine a legal code that says something like,
I don't know if Clearwater has such language on their books, but if they do the relevant is indeed whether the fish was an advertisement, rather than whether a building can be a billboard.But really, isn't anyone else going to congratulate Radley on his outstanding headline? Brilliant, RB, brilliant.
Posted by: James Hanley | January 14, 2009 1:28 PM
This is just a case of the city staff abusing its power and paying no attention to "what makes sense". It seems to me that the owner of this business has been severely damaged by the actions of city staff and he should retain legal counsel to pursue not only the right to display the mural, but to get monetary damages for the lost business and waste of time experienced in fighting what is an obviously an abuse of power by the staff. I would want ask for a public records disclosure to review all interoffice correspondence to see who is really behind the city's actions.
Posted by: wilbur marbosa | January 14, 2009 5:44 PM
I bet there's something that could be construed as anti-$c!entology among the pix of fish. $clebtologists are the majority of the Clearwater council.
Posted by: Bacopa | January 14, 2009 11:08 PM
I have severely mixed feelings about this sort of thing. The reasons for regulating billboards are presumably largely aesthetic, and I have some dislike for leaving such things up to community standards. On the other hand, in the cases I've seen where communities enforce strict standards on forms of display, the local aesthetics often seem considerably improved. Downtown Santa Barbara is the most dramatic example that comes to my mind; sure, its not an architectural wonderland or anything, but for the most part it's much prettier than a typical downtown area. Mandating an old Spanish look surely prevents some things that would be much more interesting and attractive, but it appears to have far more often prevented quite ugly and cheesy commercial scenery. Of course, in this case we might want to say "it's just some guy's fish; what's the big deal?", which is kind of how I felt when Santa Barbara wouldn't let the Warner Bros. studio store have a giant Bugs Bunny, but they have to draw the line somewhere for the system to work. And, again, I have some inclination to think that such systems may be worth the trouble.
Posted by: Aaron Boyden | January 15, 2009 11:59 AM