The Tulsa Forum by TulsaNow

http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2009/01/06/0755179.pdf

I got to page 46 before I caved in and scrolled to the summary.

I'm not sure your headline is accurate. In this case the city of LA presented a reasonable, if not convoluted, argument that they were acting in the best interests of the public to reduce traffic hazards, to increase traffic safety and not to restrict free speech. The 1st amendment has lesser protections for commercial speech than for its citizens. The court made the point that government has always put restrictions on the manner of commercial speech and always been upheld.

It appeared as though they were eliminating any competition for their own transit shelters and bus stops but in fact the SFA had been in operation for many years and the sign ordinance changes were part of a larger set of city regulations that were being modified. No doubt they have received pressure to tone down the outrageous lighted billboards whose glare and distraction have gathered unwanted legal attention. It appears to allow current legal off site signs.

I can't say its a restriction on commerce that I would have supported but if the people of LA are not offended, whatever.

As Aquaman says, there's nothing novel in the court's reasoning. Balancing tests between governmental interests and individual rights have always been applied by the courts. The specific test depends on the issue and its context. The 9th Circuit used a long-established level of scrutiny applicable to restrictions on commercial speech test to balance the city's interests and the plaintiffs':

1. The government's interest must be "substantial."
2. The restriction must directly advance that interest.
3. The restriction must not be more extensive than required by the interest.

This is a bit lower standard than other kinds of 1st Amendment cases.  In the typical "fundamental right" case involving the restriction of a right guaranteed by the Bill of Rights, the courts apply "strict scrutiny:"

1. The government's interest must be compelling.
2. The means used must be narrowly tailored to achieve that objective.
3. The restriction must be the least restrictive means available to achieve the objective.

In most cases, when a new restriction is enacted, existing uses that violate the restriction are "grandfathered," allowing the government to avoid an argument that its restriction is a "taking" that would require just compensation. 

I did learn a new word and concept in the reading. That of "underinclusivity". The explanation will cause you to get mental cramps. Something about if the restriction tends to do less towards accomplishing the states' interest than if they did nothing at all??

What underinclusivity refers to is a restriction that includes a bunch of exemptions based on the content of the speech being regulated. If the exemptions defeat the purpose of the restriction, the restriction fails to directly advance the governmental interest. The best example was the federal ban on advertising casino gambling but exempting Indian casinos. If the governmental interest was minimizing the social costs of gambling, that interest was defeated by exempting Indian casinos.

The plaintiffs argued that the city's restriction was underinclusive because it banned only off-site advertising (billboards) will exempting onsite advertising (signs). But the city's restriction was there to further public safety and aesthetics, not to regulate the content of billboards or to ban advertising. The city wanted most of the billboards gone.  The ordinance directly accomplished that, so it wasn't underinclusive.

I'm still trying to figure out why the exemptions to the Do Not Call registry don't defeat the purpose of the registry.

Maybe the exemptions on the DoNotCall registry have simply not been challenged? Since the opposition to it would be difficult to organize.

I wonder if the LA experience is going to impact the industry to any extent. Is there a movement I am unaware of? Billboards are lucrative and effective if used correctly and with common sense. When they aren't they are an abomination. It isn't covered much around here but there is a controversy over a billboard that was constructed in front of the landmark round barn on Rt.66. They want to capitalize on state tourism efforts to publicize 66 and the barn. What better way than to make sure an insurance company ad is the first thing you see.

That pretty much indicates the mentality of the industry in my opinion. Another example is the extremely bright flashing type boards that are ugly and distracting. You feel guilty just looking at them. Safety and aesthetics are low on their list of interests, their own property rights seem to be at the top.

“We were stupid to be silent, but we're a little smarter now,”
 http://newsok.com/fight-over-billboard-in-arcadia-ongoing/article/3588057#ixzz1XT5ZhSNQ

I'm surprised Zoom Media Group hasn't established a worship service at the base of the sign so they can apply for exempt status. A lesson to be learned for all those who just love to deify small business owners. Some of them are predatory jerks who use the naivete and good will of others to prosper. The answer to this may be a vigilantism effort by the locals. They may overlook graffiti in that area and continue to apply pressure to his advertisers until he finds his $48,000 investment seriously degraded.