Leave the Sign, Take the Cannoli

(Photo by Bukaty/AP/WSJ)

The question: is the mural over Leavitt’s Bakery "commercial speech" subject to regulation or is it art that is protected by the First Amendment? [bold added]

[The town of Conway, NH] had argued the mural was a commercial sign and in violation of the town’s zoning law, and told him to take it down or adjust the size, which at 91 square feet was nearly four times larger than allowed. [Leavitt’s Bakery owner Sean] Young fought back, saying the mural was art, not advertising, and that the town infringed on his First Amendment rights by trying to regulate its content. He filed a First Amendment lawsuit against the town and sought $1 in damages.

..The ruling, issued by U.S. District Judge Joseph Laplante, came after a one-day bench trial in February.

Laplante said Conway’s enforcement of the ordinance was unconstitutional, and ordered the town to stop its efforts.

There are sound reasons for the regulation of commercial speech. Businesses could lie about the benefits, costs, or any other aspects of their products and services and skip town to avoid responsibility; such speech should not be protected by the First Amendment.

In the case of Leavitt's Bakery it's not clear why the public needed protection from the mural; calling it a commercial sign seemed like a pretext to force the bakery to remove an image that some in the town didn't like. Cheers for the judge for putting a stop to legal over-reach.