IN THE UNITED STATES
DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
JOHN
S. LA TOUR,
)
Plaintiff, )
v.
)
)
CITY
OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS
) File Number:
BRANDT WARWICK
)
02-5001
CASEY JONES
)
KIT WILLIAMS
)
BOB ESTES
)
MIKE MCKIMMEY
)
Defendants, in both their
individual and official )
Capacities.
)
_____________________________________
REPLY
TO DEFENDANTS RESPONSE IN
OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS FOR
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND EXPEDITED HEARING
INTRODUCTION
1. Defendants have now replied to my motion for injunctive relief. In this reply, the main points of my lawsuit continue to be ignored and my rights to free speech continue to be breeched, contrary to the representations of the Defendants. Moreover, every day I am not allowed to change my sign’s message like time and temperature signs, and my ability to influence the passing public is diminished and my sign’s value is depleted. The City has offered no cases that are relevant to this case because cases supporting their arguments do NOT exist.
2.
This is why.
POSITION
AND ARGUMENTS
3. In their reply, defendants cite only cases by reference but
the cases referenced never dealt with the Fayetteville sign ordinance
(“ordinance”) as applied. Thus,
the only cases cited are completely irrelevant to this case, as this Court has
previously ruled. Moreover, these
earlier cases did not raise the issues of facial illegal prior restraint or
content regulation. Indeed, the
Defendants cite no new cases because they have no cases to cite. Every case we have researched and cited leads to one
inevitable conclusion; the ordinance is unconstitutional on it face and in its
application.
4. Our nation is currently in a very close election cycle
which will determine the future control over both chambers of the U.S. Congress.
I support Tim Hutchinson for senate as opposed to Mark Pryor.
I would like my sign to say, “Hutchinson
for U.S. Senate” . I would also
like my sign to say, “Bootsie Ackerman for the State House”, and “Vote for
Amendment 3 to Eliminate Sales Tax on Food and Medicine”.
I would also like my sign to say, “Stop Abortion, Vote Pro Life” as
well as “Support the War on Terrorism, Call Congress Now”.
5. My sign can only accommodate twenty-one characters at one
time. Thus, these messages would be
incomprehensible if, for instance my Hutchinson promotion could only say,
“Hutchinson for U.S. S” (i.e., 21 characters).
Likewise, even a sign that says, “Hutchinson Senate” would NOT inform
a new resident of Arkansas which race to vote in, state or national.
Additionally, displaying “Hutchinson” for three hours and then
displaying “U.S. Senate” for the next three hours would not communicate the
desired message.
6. This same sort of argument can be made for each of my desired
messages. Of course, I don’t have
to put my political opinions on my electronic sign; I could place my twenty or
so opinions on small temporary signs. However,
this many signs would surely defeat the City’s objective of aesthetically
pleasing sights around town. Moreover,
the chances of a passing motorist reading all twenty or so small signs are very
unlikely. Thus an electronic
sign, changing its message with sufficient frequency to communicate an
intelligible point of view, is the only way to communicate a number of opinions
with only one sign and influence the passing public with all opinions.
7. Moreover, it is important in the life of a community that
residents be able to respond quickly and timely to political and other events
occurring in that community. SEE, Shuttlesworth
v. City of Birmingham, 394 U.S. 147, 163 (Harlan, J., concurring).
Electronic signs have the unique ability to change their messages without
the cost or effort of repainting or re-stenciling fixed sign faces. See,
City of Ladue v. Gilleo, 512 U.S.
43 (1994). Many
times the absence of this convenience will mean the difference between
participating in a debate and not. This
perhaps more than any other factor is why the City is attempting to relegate
electronic signs to step-child status by unconstitutionally applying its sign
ordinance.
8. Additionally, functioning electronic signs allow
multiple messages to be displayed using only one sign.
Thus electronic signs can actually reduce the number of signs in a
community thereby achieving one of the City’s stated objectives.
9. These benefits not withstanding, the City continues to allow time and temperature signs to change their messages at their owner’s will while at the same time the City refuses to allow my sign to function in a similar fashion. This is the illegal content-based application of the ordinance.
10. In order to allow me to express my full political opinions on my sign during this crucial election cycle, the City must be enjoined from enforcing this illegal ordinance. Without such an injunction, I will be immediately and irreparably harmed by having my full political expression silenced, or at best squelched.
11. It should be noted that the First Amendment has its fullest and most profound affect in this political speech area. Our community is benefited by robust political debate with a full expression of every angle on an issue. This cannot be achieved when the local sign ordinance squelches that debate.
12. My sign currently is operating in a static mode. It displays only one message: “RecallCoody.com”. I do not change the message because the restrictions placed on me by the City would make such changes useless, as demonstrated above. Indeed, half-thoughts hardly constitute robust political debate!
12.
Moreover, political signs displayed at my residence will have little or
no affect on the public passing by my office on Sixth Street.
Therefore, these signs are irrelevant to this debate.
Although, it should be noted
that I do NOT operate a business at my residence as the City maintains; I simply
rent parking spaces to Razorback football fans five days per year.
How many “businesses” do you know that operate five days per year?
If renting out my yard is illegal, then every rent house in
Fayetteville’s R1 zones would be illegal.
Does the City want to join a new legal battle over this issue?
13. The City complains that if I was being damaged I would have filed my motion for injunctive relief sooner. Indeed, if I were a little smarter, I would have filed the motion sooner. I have endured the pain of being silenced for these many months but as soon as I became aware of this form of relief, I filled the motion. Pro Se litigation has its limitations.
14. The City argues that I cannot prove that there is a substantial likelihood that I will prevail on the merits of this case at trial. However, the City fails to recognize that my complaint was amended. The amended complaint challenges the ordinance on its face. A simple reading of the ordinance and the cited cases will reveal a very substantial likelihood of my arguments on the merits succeeding at trial. Thus injunctive relief is both reasonable and necessary.
CONCLUSION
15. The City argues no relevant cases to support its position simply because it has no cases to cite. Instead, it amazingly relies on the same outdated Arkansas cases that do not even address the issues of this case. I continue to suffer, every passing day, the pain of the unconstitutional squelching of my personal opinions. Because of this, I once again ask this Court for immediate injunctive relief from this unconstitutional sign ordinance.
Respectfully
submitted,
JOHN S. LA TOUR
BY: _____________________
John S. La Tour, Pro Se
October 22, 2002
JOHN S. LA TOUR
Certified Public Accountant
112 Center Street, Suite 560
Fayetteville, AR 72701
(479) 443-7878