• Skip to main content
  • Skip to secondary menu
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer

Gateway Journalism Review

Published continuously since 1970

  • Email
  • Facebook
  • Phone
  • Twitter
  • Home
  • About GJR
  • News
    • Police Accountability Project
    • Midwest
    • Opinion
    • Media
  • Print issue
  • First Amendment Celebration
    • Watch: 11th Annual First Amendment Celebration

Ladue's free speech legacy

July 16, 2011 by William H. Freivogel

image_pdfimage_print

A month after former Ladue Mayor Edith Spink died, the legal legacy of her fight against a little, anti-war sign provided the basis of a federal court decision striking down the St. Louis law that banned a large mural that opposed abuse of eminent domain.

A three-judge panel of the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in St. Louis cited the 1994 decision of Ladue v. Gilleo as a reason that St. Louis’ sign law is unconstitutional.

It’s almost always a violation of the First Amendment when a municipality restricts speech based on its content. That is what the city of St. Louis did in banning the eminent domain sign while permitting other kinds of signs that had flags, organizational symbols or works of art.

The signs involved in the two cases were very different. Margaret Gilleo’s little 8.5×11 inch sign in her second story window read, “For Peace in the Gulf” – a protest against the first Persian Gulf war. Activist Jim Roos’ 336 square foot mural, visible from I

how to get a divorce

nterstates 44 and 55 read: “End Eminent Domain Abuse” with a red circle and a slash through it.

But both the city of St. Louis and Mrs. Spink made the same argument. Both claimed that cities could set rules for signs that would preserve the aesthetics of the community. Both lost, and both lost big. The decisions were unanimous.

The appeals court panel, referring to the Ladue case, decided that the definition of sign in the St. Louis ordinance was based on the content of the sign because all of the exceptions to the definition were ones based on content. The exceptions permitted flags, symbols of fraternal or religious organizations, works of art and time and temperature devices.

Because the definition was content based, the highest level of constitutional scrutiny applied, the court said. That scrutiny requires that a law be narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling state interest. The court ruled that the St. Louis law failed both parts of the test. Aesthetics is not a compelling state interest and the St. Louis law was not narrowly written.

zp8497586rq

Author

  • William H. Freivogel

    View all posts

Share our journalism
           

Filed Under: Media

Archive of St. Louis Journalism Review

The St. Louis Public Library maintains an archive of our collection when Gateway Journalism Review was the St. Louis Journalism Review.

Primary Sidebar

Sign up for our weekly newsletter!

Don't miss original stories about local journalism happening between the coasts. We deliver media news from the Midwest to your inbox every Thursday afternoon.


By submitting this form, you are consenting to receive marketing emails from: Gateway Journalism Review, SIU Carbondale School of Journalism, Carbondale, IL, 62901, http://www.gatewayjr.org. You can revoke your consent to receive emails at any time by using the SafeUnsubscribe® link, found at the bottom of every email. Emails are serviced by Constant Contact
No audio track to show. (Invalid input URL)

Life After Journalism


IRE Radio


Illinois News Broadcasters


Footer

11th Annual First Amendment Celebration featuring Evan Osnos

https://vimeo.com/704150392?loop=0

10th Annual First Amendment Celebration featuring Claire McCaskill

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vwtrmyauuBA

Listen to GJR’s Founder

Become a sustaining member or associate of GJR with a recurring or one-time donation that supports our journalism.

Copyright © 2023 · Magazine Pro on Genesis Framework · WordPress · Log in