One would hardly relish the position of Jim Andrews, owner of Felony Franks on the Near West Side of Chicago. Andrews is suing after city officials refused to allow him to hang his sign as offensive. He has named not just the city by 2nd Ward Alderman Bob Fioretti (2nd) for what he claims is a denial of his free speech. He may have a point.
Fioretti admits that he finds the sign offensive. The restaurant hired ex-cons to give them a second chance.
He is asking for not just the right to hang the sign but $293,000 in damages. While there an ordinance pending in city council to nix all signs hanging over the street on Western, it would appear that the denial here may be content-based. This would certainly lead to a legitimate question of a denial of free speech.
We have seen prior free speech claims raised over signs and even the words of the first amendment.
Andrews cuts through the historical and legal pretenses and sums it up as “I think I’m being screwed.” He may be right.
Historically, aesthetic nuisances are weak claims that are rejected by the courts. If the city were to ban signs on the street, it could make for some interesting questions in court. It could explore whether the ordinance is targeting Felony Franks. More importantly, it will have to answer why these businesses are denied the right to hang signs as opposed to other businesses. There is also the takings aspect of failing to compensate owners for a limitation on their property.
When I grew up in Chicago, the city was divided not only between the Cubs and the White Sox, but between those who went to Fluky’s and Wolfy’s for their dogs. There was also Gold Coast Dog which was pretty good for folks near the loop. Northsiders (like me) are Cubs fans and eat at Wolfy’s. I used to go there with my late father who loved a good Chicago dawg.
Before you say the Constitution is going to the dogs in such cases, Felony Franks could make for an important ruling on the scope of free speech protections in such things as signage. While commercial speech has been given less protection than noncommercial speech, it is still protected. The Supreme Court noted in Edenfield v. Fane:
“The commercial market place, like other spheres of our social and cultural life, provides a forum where ideas and information flourish. Some of the ideas and information are vital, some of slight worth. But the general rule is that the speaker and the audience, not the government, assess the value of the information presented. Thus, even a communication that does no more than propose a commercial transaction is entitled to the coverage of the First Amendment.”
The proper use of time, place, and manner limitations is a constant concern of the courts. In 1981, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a ban on outdoor advertising in Metromedia, Inc. v. City of San Diego. The ordinance allowed for 12 specified categories, but the Court found that the ordinance allowed officials to limit non-commerical speech. The plurality stated, however, the government could ban non-commercial speech in some circumstances. The problem was the sweep of the ordinance since “[b]illboards are a well-established medium of communication, used to convey a broad range of different kinds of messages.” It has to be done carefully, however: “With respect to noncommercial speech, the city may not choose the appropriate subjects for public discourse,. Because the San Diego ordinance reaches too far into the realm of protected speech, we conclude that it is unconstitutional.”
Under Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. v. Public Service Commission Of New York, the government must justify restrictions on truthful, nonmisleading commercial speech by showing the limitations or prohibitions “directly advance” a substantial state interest and are no more extensive than necessary to serve that interest. Felony Frank could argue that the denial does not satisfy the so-called Central Hudson Test even if the ban is passed.
This is clearly commercial speech, though with the hiring of ex-cons it has some non-commerical value. Such plurality decisions as Metromedia do not answer the question fully and this Supreme Court is now more agreeable to business claims, including some justices like Sotomayor and Breyer on the left of the Court.
We will closely follow the progress of the Felony Frank case.
Source: Chicago Journal
Jonathan Turley
Gyges,
Good luck with that friend you and your wife used to know called Sleep. This is your second child?
Gyges,
Congrats on the new arrival! I hope mother and daughter are doing well!
FFLEO,
Thanks. She’s a girl, 8 days old. I hadn’t found a good segue to make the announcement yet, so you didn’t miss anything.
My father-in-law used to DJ at a country station in the 50s so he occasionally introduces me to one of the forgotten greats.
Gyges,
That Arnold/Talluluh comedy clip and Kentucky Waltz ‘was’ finer than frog hair! Thanks. I shore do miss that ol’ Plowboy ’cause he was a goodin’–as a gentleman and sanger…
Congrats on your new youngin’ Boy or girl? (I musta missed the good news if you posted that elsewhere)
Er, ignore “to find out.” Crying newborns tend to distract me.
Mike,
Honestly, my guess is that it depends on when the Hebrew people first encountered a culture that distilled to find out. Dietary taboos tend to follow one of two functions, safety (don’t eat other people) or cultural definition (only nobles can eat refined flour, we don’t eat this and the other tribes around us do).
If they encountered a group early enough in their development that drinking hard liquor would encourage “mingling” or that distilling was dangerous enough to require banning, chances are it’s prohibited. If it’s late enough that their cultural identity would be established, and distilling technology was more advanced, the laws may be silent (I bet there’s nothing said either way about tequila or potato vodka, both of which use crops from the New World).
Alternately, if there’s restrictions on grain production, that might come into play with whiskey, rye vodkas, gin, etc.
“tequila, or wine on Passover.”
“There’s kosher tequila?”
Gyges,
It’s not nice to make fun at the fact I’m grammatically challenged. No one drinks tequila at a seder. Actually,
maybe some do and I’ve never heard of it. As for Tequila, or other hard alcohol (Scotch, Vodka…)being kosher I don’t know. I know that really Kosher people drink hard alcohol, many of which are popular brands, so I guess it is kosher, but its a question I’ve never asked. I find out and report back.
Bud,
“I had a friend that was really addicted to those dawgs…
We had a hell of a time trying to weiner off them.”
Lol …
FFLEO,
Howdy. I’ve been happy to see you’ve come out of retirement. I discovered this recording the other day, and think you might enjoy it.
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2IwUYeL6j3I&w=640&h=390]
I had a friend that was really addicted to those dawgs…
We had a hell of a time trying to weiner off them.
Hey Gyges.
“tequila, or wine on Passover.”
There’s kosher tequila?
“Ha Mike, at my age? Are you trying to do me in, Friend?!”
FFLEO,
You left yourself so open on that so I had to bite. Actually, I’m too old for that stuff now myself, except for an occasional shot of tequila, or wine on Passover.
You have to drink 4 glasses at a seder to comply with ritual and tradition. After my heart surgery, after the first day when I needed them, the MD’s and nurses kept trying to push serious painkillers on me, but from the first days dosage, I didn’t like my brain scrambled so much and refused. While I look back on my hippie days fondly, I neither miss them, nor getting high. I enjoy being a straight old fart. These are really the best days of my life and I suspect yours.
Ha Mike, at my age? Are you trying to do me in, Friend?!
“I think of this stuff without benefit of illicit hallucinogenic drugs or booze of any kind…”
FFLEO,
It’s never too late.
rafflaw,
However, what concerns me the most is that I think of this stuff without benefit of illicit hallucinogenic drugs or booze of any kind…
Former Fed,
You are on fire today! 🙂
Frankfurtermore, and after reading ‘Fesser T’s expert legal analysis, I predict that the plaintiffs and their legal team will be the ‘wieners’ in this adversarial contest.
To celebrate their victory, the Cons will add new ‘condiments’ to the menu, including a dessert named in honor of themselves and a Bush Admin professional we all admire, called Condi Rice pudding followed by free conmints and lock-picks glad-handed out at the checkout counter.
Case Closed! Justice ‘Served’ Here at Felony Franks!
I seem to recall reading about the same alderman trying to stop them from having the name appear on the side of the building a couple of years ago when they first openned. So I definately think the objection is based on the content of the sign.
My old girl friend went to Mather Highschool and swore by Fluky’s and Wolfy’s. The absolute best dog in town is now at a place a few blocks south of Gorden Tech (Addison) on California called Hot Doug’s. The owner started making foie gras hot dogs a few years ago just to piss off the city counsel who had banned foie gras in Chicago. Hot dog politics.
When in Chicago definately check out Hot Dougs. Also, the Weiner Circle is great (but maybe only when it’s 3 in the morning and one’s a bit drunk)
Considering how many Chicago Aldermen are themselves felonious hot dogs , perhaps the honorable Mr. Fioretti was offended because he felt the sign was too good a likeness?