
The billboard above Wolf Automotive asks the question
with grotesque caricatures and then screams
BIRTH CERTIFICATE PROVE IT! WAKE UP AMERICA! REMEMBER FT. HOOD!
The billboard is owned by Wolf Automotive in Wheat Ridge, Colorado, and owner Phil Wold told local 9News:
I put up the billboard because I had questions. They haven’t been answered. No one wants to ask them. My employees have [been] swamped with calls. They have been threatened, called names. I didn’t expect that. We live in a free country. We have the right express our opinions. It’s my sign, my business and my property.
And he has pointed, based on the 1994 Supreme Court decision, Ladue v Gillio which protected political signage on private property.
Meanwhile in San Carlos, CA a commercial billboard company has filed suit, claiming the new commercial sign they want to erect, nearly double the size permitted, is protected political speech because they plan to slap up a Sarah Palin 2012 poster on the almost 50 foot high structure–which is almost as large as regular billboard. San Carlos has banned new billboards since 1991, and City Attorney Gregory Rubens told Sphere that the Hersons are:
using Palin’s name was a “ploy” to draw attention to the case and provide a pretext for the lawsuit. “We don’t know of any connection between him and Gov. Palin,” Rubens said. “We think he used the cachet of her name to get all the publicity.”
Herson’s father Alan is an attorney who files lawsuits on the company’s behalf, and it seems pretty clear they are using the political angle to skirt the law–and line their pockets. The Hersons filed suit in federal court when the oversize billboard permit was denied. In response to the federal suit, the San Carlos City Council approved
an emergency ordinance reaffirming a city ban on new billboards and removing restrictions on political signs that the court had found offensive.
The Henson’s free speech advocacy comes with a price: Despite the new ordinance, they are pressing onward with their suit, seeking
damages of $15,000 a month for each side of the billboard. The case is similar to one the Hersons filed against the city of Richmond on the opposite side of San Francisco Bay earlier this year. In fact, the suits are so alike that in one place, the Hersons’ San Carlos filing says “Richmond” instead of “San Carlos,” suggesting that the lawyer simply switched the city’s names in the suit but missed one.
Richmond’s city council also passed a new ordinance to remove its restrictions on political signs but Herson says he is continuing to press for damages in that case.
Attorney/daddy Herson says:
It’s a crusade. We fight for truth, justice and the American way…We were successful with the Oregon billboard law. We are extending freedom throughout the West…
The pair won a landmark billboard case in Oregon in 2006. After spending 12 years fighting that state’s billboard law Alan Herson persuaded the Oregon’s Supreme Court to throw it out. Herson claims San Carlos’’s ban is politically motivated:
The Bay Area is a liberal place, and liberals tend not to like free speech put up by other people. I have a hunch if that sign said ‘Support Nancy Pelosi,’ it would be up by now. They hate Palin. They hate her more than anything.
But it feels more like the Hersons are pimping Palin’s picture to get rich both from suing the city and then turning their political billboard into a profit-making venture. If the Hersons win their suit against the city, Sarah’s huge smiling visage could legally be replaced by commercial advertising. Said Alan Herson:
You will see that sign up there someday.
Frivolous lawsuits sucking money from small towns, launched by someone using Sarah Palin’s image in vain to connive a way around a city ordinance prohibiting new billboards! Where’s tort reform when you need it?