you can try to fight big corporations from spending money on advertising, but you probably won’t win.
Here’s an interesting turn of events in L.A. that I read about on the LA Times.
(LINK)
A federal judge has issued a preliminary injunction blocking the city of Los Angeles from cracking down on as many as 34 “supergraphics,” multi-story vinyl signs that have been draped across the sides of buildings in violation of the city’s billboard ban.
In a ruling last week, U.S. District Judge Audrey B. Collins ordered the city to stop prosecuting Insite Outdoor Works LA until the company has a chance to challenge the city’s outdoor advertising laws.
Collins said Insite showed that it had a likelihood of winning its lawsuit, which argues that the city’s 2002 billboard ban violates the 1st Amendment. The judge also threw into question the legality of city’s policy of keeping billboards away from freeways.
The city’s billboard rules are being challenged in more than a dozen lawsuits. Insite has argued that, despite the rules prohibiting freeway billboards, at least five outdoor signs have already been permitted near freeways at such locations as Staples Center.
“The plaintiffs here have persuasively demonstrated that, despite the city’s interests in safety and aesthetics that support its ban on signs within 2,000 feet of a freeway, the city has permitted giant commercial billboards in these areas that directly undermine those interests,” Collins wrote.
City officials have attempted to prosecute Insite over seven of its 34 supergraphics, which are on such streets as Wilshire, Ventura, Sepulveda, Santa Monica and Pico.
Frank Mateljan, a spokesman for City Atty. Rocky Delgadillo, said the same judge recently sided with the city in a separate case involving illegally erected signs in Hollywood. Mateljan also said the ruling in the Insite case applies only to the 34 signs.
“Each billboard case raises somewhat different issues arising from somewhat different procedural backgrounds,” he said in an e-mail, “so one has to review each case individually.”