Fwiw, another differentiator in my opinion is that it's placed on an existing wall, it's not a standalone billboard.

And I would think the proposed solution of painting a government slogan onto it should be seen as a government steal.

You're right Jerry. Also, it's painted directly on her business.

"Government menaced"?
Her business is hardly menaced. Now she is going to court. Smart. Free publicity. And more lawyering.

Why are you weeping over First Amendment freedoms in this post when you were praising secrecy in the last one?

I have to agree -- the local government is acting in bad faith.

Well, I would agree that the county officials have better things to do than worry about this mural, and if I was in their position I might just let it go...

But it seems a bit disingenuous to say that the mural is not commercial at all. The dogs in the mural are drawn in a similar style to the dogs in her dog grooming company logo. I don't see how you can say that it's not promoting her business at all. It may be a gentle, unobtrusive, aesthetically pleasing piece of commercial signage, but there's a very strong argument that it is commercial signage. And even her lawyer says "counties clearly have the right to regulate commercial signage."

We have a big, socialist government. It is supported by a Supreme Court and lower courts that respond to the political climate, but not completely.

There is a false distinction between commercial speech and political or artistic speech. The government uses that distinction to prosecute businesses but leave politicians alone. Artistic speech is now mostly Progessive, so that is also sacred.

Progressives feel that anything related to money or business is tainted and close to evil. They say that commercial messages must be regulated to prevent defrauding people, even to the point of limiting simple advertising messages like "my business is here".

In contrast, politicians use free speech to lie shamelessly, free by sacred principle.

The Federal Trade Commission prosecutes buinesses for false claims. I have some sympathy for that, but overall this is bad for our society. People should not get the impression that every commercial statement is likely true, because "otherwise the government would have stopped them". We should promote skeptcism about all messages, commercial, political, and artistic.

I would like a world where important lies could be prosecuted, but overall this backfires. We have laws against slander. These serve to enable most slander. People say incorrectly that the slanders must be true, or "the victim would have sued". It is much better to allow slander and promote skepticism, without expecting lawsuits to defend reputation.

The most important and costly lies are political and are beyond control, other than through free speech. We need the repeated cry "who says so, and where are your facts in writing?"

Government must have a plan in the background before it can write legislation. Let's see the written plans of the politicians. If there is no carefully researched plan, then that is a horrible misuse of office.

The Congress and Obama should proudly present the careful research that supports their proposed rearrangement of society. Obama is a Harvard trained law instructor. He should be up to it.

Where are the policy papers which explain the giant experiments that our government is forcing on the people?
→ A Few Words About Policy

> you don't have a right to pore over
> everyone else's speech in its entirety.

Not "everyone"... How about the speech of the people who are speaking in your name and at your expense on topics of war and international posture? Is kennel decor the greater concern?

I'm not sure why it should be illegal for a person to put even a blatently commercial mural on her own property, as long as it doesn't break the Homeowner's Association rules (assuming there are any).

OK, so govt. can make laws just because they feel like it, but what's the point? It's her property and it's not offensive.

Bah humbug. Its her bloody business, its her bloody building, it poses no physical threat to the health, welfare, or safety of any member of the population in any way, and it makes no claims about her business except perhaps what her business does.

So...why the fuck does some pissant little government fucknut cog have any business using tax payer money going after this as if it is any of the government's fucking business?

The government's interests in the commercial sphere are supposed to solely be in the protection of citizens from fraudulent claims or hazards to health, and the limited collection of taxes to provide services to both businesses and private citizens.

Neither of those things are served by regulation here, if there was concern about the content or claims of the sign, sobeit, but this is clearly not the case. By this level of government involvement in business we are one step away from a government approved color list for the walls of buildings.

Re free speech and secrecy . . . I can't believe that I'm in agreement with Crid.

But I am . . .

A founding father once called government at its best, a necessary evil, and at its worst, an intolerable one. I propose a new slogan:

Government: it's just so fucking dumb!

And you know who rails against these commercial signs that so offend? Progressives! I'm usually not one to toss that label around, but my alt-weekly is VERY MUCH AGAINST commercial signs (and they are unabashedly left-leaning on all topics). Driving down one road in our town is an "eyesore" as the street is littered with signs for businesses. The Daily Billboard Company, which usually advertises local events, has been demonized. They shouldn't build more bus shelters because the city wants to fund them by using the space for commercial signage.

The one that made me the saddest was the one about a guy with a large plot of land by a highway overpass. On it, he had a large shed. In a move that I thought was pretty clever and very entrepeneurial, he sold the space on his roof for advertising. The alt-weekly's staff reported him for violating the city's sign ordinance. I think it's sad that nearly everything regarding your own personal property is regulated now, even what you can do with your roof.

As far as commercial signage goes, I think they should only limit height/size (for visibility), lighting (to make sure it's not leaking into anyone's house), and safety.

"I'm not sure why it should be illegal for a person to put even a blatently commercial mural on her own property, as long as it doesn't break the Homeowner's Association rules (assuming there are any)."

I agree, liberty is liberty, end of story. Which part of "liberty" don't people understand, exactly.

"Her business is hardly menaced."

Of course it is.

"Now she is going to court. Smart. Free publicity"

Defending liberty, and promoting capitalism at the same time. That is America at its heart, it bloody rocks! If you don't like it, you're definitely in the wrong place.

"And more lawyering."

And this is a logical fallacy of hasty generalization; while most "lawyering" is excessive and bad, when it is the "defending YOUR constitutional liberties" type of lawyering, it is good lawyering. It's actually disgusting that you bitch and whine that someone else is defending YOUR liberties. Or let me guess, you work for the government and are one of those who derive a salary for menacing and "regulating" the public.