Three years ago, as an AmericanS.
Troops preparing to attack Iraqi forces, Margaret Gilleo of Ladu, Missouri.
I want to disagree. She put up a 2-by-3-
The foot of her front yard
It says, "say no to the war in the Persian Gulf.
Call Congress now.
But her town is St.
Louis recently imposed a ban on displaying almost all signs and billboards.
The purpose is to maintain "charm and visual quality ". . .
A city official said the heavily wooded, rustic community.
Gilleo also disagreed with the view and won a federal court ruling declaring that the city Act imposed constitutional restrictions on her freedomspeech rights.
It's her case now. Gilleo, 92-
1856, forcing the Supreme Court to face a problem that has divided judges at least since 1981.
Does the First Amendment ban most signs and billboards from cities or other governments?
In the past, the court allowed cities and states to limit the placement of signs to certain locations, such as major roads or industrial zones.
But so far, judges have refused to support a virtual ban on advertising and political signs.
"This is a quality --of-
"The life case," said Maryland state attorney Diane Crespo, who submitted a briefing on behalf of seven states in support of the city of Ladu.
She urged the court to give more power to government officials to fight "visual disease" by limiting signs to people who provide security or other basic information ".
For example, the Ladu regulations only allow the use of road signs, commercial signs, religious symbols and "sale" signs in front of the house on Church property.
But the American Civil Liberties Union, which represents Gilleo, says the law, in fact, violates the Constitution and prevents a whole class of freedom of speech: political information.
Background: On 1981, the judges overturned part of the San Diego law, which prohibits outdoor advertising, except for business addresses.
But the judges cannot agree on a clear reason.
Members of the liberal Court, who, along with the moderate, rejected the law, said any restrictions on freedom of expression were constitutional violations.
The moderate agreed that the law was flawed because it prohibited signs with political information, but other signs that published product advertisements.
Conservative Party with different opinions by William H.
He said they would even support a full ban on signs.
"It seems to me that aesthetic reasons alone are enough to maintain a full ban on billboards, whether it is a historical community like Williamsburg (Va. )
Or as ugly as the old districts of many of our major metropolitan areas, "Renquist wrote.
Last year, the US governmentS.
In St's court of appeal
Louis cited the ruling of Metromedia vs. 1981.
Santiago will abolish the city regulations of Ladu.
"Ladue singled out signs of discriminatory treatment in certain categories," the lower court said . ".
But the Supreme Court has announced that the city's appeal will now be heard by Chief Justice Renquist.
Next: oral debate will be heard on Wednesday.
As their lawyers say, the case gives the court the opportunity to clarify the law and may give more power to government officials to control the "signature mess ".
Over the past 20 years, the court has repeatedly said that officials may regulate freedom of speech, but may not ban it.
For example, the police are allowed to limit the pickets to the sidewalk and ensure that they do not block the entrance to the building.
However, they cannot ban picketing throughout the city.
Officials in the city of Ladu want to go further and ban all signs, except those that are required at a minimum.
If they win, it could mean a significant change in the First Amendment.
White House lawyers stepped in to support Geely.
They say it is against the constitution to "completely prohibit protected media of expression" because it discriminate against individual dissent.
The Justice Department argues: "Signs of controversy like in this case are usually the only way for individuals to make public statements . ".
The decision in the case is expected to be made by July.