Nailed to the wall

The Seattle Times
August 13, 2002

Poster ruling puts constitutional limits on ordinance

Editor, The Times:

The Times' editorial on a Court of Appeals ruling relating to postings on telephone poles mistook the meaning of the court's ruling ("A wrong ruling on worker safety, litter," Aug. 10). The ruling, which you called "nutty," is more limited and more reasonable than appeared from the editorial.

The court held that the particular Seattle ordinance under review went too far in prohibiting postings on telephone poles. At the same time, it noted that the manner of posting can be regulated. This does not mean, as the editorial asserted, that "the city cannot stop someone from stapling a poster" to a pole if it determines that stapling poses a danger to workers.

The court did not rule that an ordinance requiring an alternative form of affixing posters to signs, or barring multiple layers of posters, would be impermissible, if justified by safety considerations. It also left room for time restrictions.

The Court of Appeals' decision represents, I believe, a conscientious and thoughtful effort to apply constitutional limits to a city ordinance. The editorial criticism of that effort was based, in large part, on a misunderstanding. In any case, calling the court's ruling "nutty" was, in this reader's opinion, an unfortunate editorial choice.

Peter Greenfield, Seattle

Public forum restored

The Times' editorial on the recent court ruling that overturned Seattle's "poster ban" had it all wrong. The court stated that Seattleites have been posting on these poles since the beginning of the last century and thus they are a "traditional public forum."

Your contention that people can now plaster posters on public schools is nutty. We have used these poles for over a century to communicate with our neighbors; they are a public forum. We have never been allowed to plaster our political posters and garage sale signs on public school walls.

Also, this law was not enacted to protect workers. The City Council first passed this law for aesthetic reasons, only to have the law thrown out by the courts. Then they passed it again, this time under the guise of worker safety. Worker safety is a valid concern but, as the court noted, the city could narrowly address this issue while protecting freedom of speech.

Ben Livingston, Seattle

Free speech unglued

The ruling in question actually had nothing to do with worker safety or litter. It was a defense of our freedom of speech.

Your editorial winds down with the statement "the city cannot stop someone from stapling a poster to one of its own poles, but it can have a law that after a week, that person has to come back, take the poster down and carefully pull the staples out."

Actually, the city may enact many narrowly drawn restrictions to posters that will protect workers and limit litter. The reason for the ruling is they choose not to do that, and instead used an overly broad brush, thus violating our rights.

I urge the city to work within our state constitution to enact rules that protect my rights to free speech, our electrical workers' right to safety, and any maintenance concerns. I truly believe if we bring all the stakeholders to the table, they can find solutions that will serve each of us well.

Tim Crowley, Seattle

Pioneering precedent

While The Times editorial rebuking the recent overturn of Seattle's anti-postering ordinance makes some good points, there are some facts missing from the debate.

In 1996, I received a $250 ticket for taping a paper flier to a metal pole in the University District. I subsequently challenged the law in Municipal and Superior courts, without success. But during my trial some interesting points emerged:

Seattle City Light did not produce a single incident report of an injury to one of its workers caused by a poster or a staple. Certainly, no one has ever been injured by a piece of tape while they were climbing up a metal lamp post. And with telephone poles, the majority of the time, hydraulic "cherry-pickers" with buckets are used. And the simple act of using a ladder puts the worker above the poster line, avoiding injury.

Aided by a renowned Seattle historian, my defense presented photo documentation of posters on poles in Seattle from every decade dating back to the 1880s. One had Henry Yesler standing next to a pole plastered with the paper postings.

Does The Times really support fining everyone who posts a yard sale, lost cat or missing child alert? Let those who pine for a pristine and sanitary community move to Redmond, where citizens are told what color tarps they are allowed to use on their own property.

Vivian McPeak, Seattle

Paper-thin logic

Your recent editorial on the court ruling overturning Seattle's "poster ban" was more than a little off base.

The original poster ban was motivated solely by aesthetic concerns, and had nothing to do with worker safety. While the council passed a new ordinance and recruited labor as an ally, the reality is the court's ruling (which suggests reasonable means of limiting this speech while still allowing it) is a reasonable defense of free speech while still allowing for regulation to protect worker safety.

A newspaper, of all things, should remember the importance of protecting free speech with reasonable safeguards. Much of First Amendment law is built around that balance. Simply banning speech is rarely an acceptable solution.

The editorial's contention that people can now plaster posters on public schools as a result of this ruling is silly. Utility poles have long been a means of communication with neighbors, as mentioned in the ruling — public school property has never been a similar means of communication. The argument is a red herring at best.

Finally, remember the City Council promised kiosks as a means of providing for posting information that couldn't be posted on utility poles. I'm sure The Times editorial board has noticed the plethora of kiosks sprouting around town?

This ruling deals with reality on the ground, not some pie-in-the-sky paranoia of posters sprouting on public school walls. Give us a break.

John Stewart, Seattle

Town decrier

The overturning of the poster ban is the only sane solution to a "nutty" law. For a city that says it is modern, cosmopolitan things like the poster ban and teen dance ordinance offer to counter that with proof that it is nothing but a backwater yuppieville that could exist anywhere in the Midwest.

One more horrid reminder of the people who moved here and turned what was an interesting place into an antiseptic, dull shopping mall.

Thor Stephens, Seattle

Desperately seeking reason

Your editorial on the "poster ban" is quite nutty.

I personally think all those "LOSE WEIGHT NOW" posters are less than aesthetically pleasing and they could most likely spend a few hundred dollars advertising in your paper, but that's just my opinion.

What about the families with runaway children, the lost pets, the independent artists' trying to be heard, garage sales etc? Not everyone can afford to buy space in the daily papers. The majority of posters I see on the poles would be useless in the classifieds.

People have been relying on this form of publicity for a long time, and will continue to do so.

Counter Commons, Seattle

Post no bills on Pearly Gates

In your nutty editorial you worry that the city may be "reduced" to enforcing laws to protect electrical workers and protecting its citizens' constitutional rights at the same time.

Heaven forbid!

Michael Crowley, Seattle