Sao Paulo recently banned all billboards from its city limits. (Pictures with billboards)(Pictures without billboards) Although the city is in Brazil and not the United States, it highlights an interesting point in my Constitutional Law reading. A “state” may place a content-neutral ban on an entire medium if:
1. The state interests are sufficiently significant,
2. The interests do not suppress the freedom of expression,
3. The law is narrowly tailored, and
4. There are viable alternatives available.
The United States Supreme Court has stated:
A majority of this Court found [in Metromedia] that [aesthetic] considerations would be sufficient to justify a content-neutral ban on all outdoor advertising signs, notwithstanding the extent to which such signs convey First Amendment protected messages. Lakewood v. Plain Dealer Publishing Co., 486 U.S. 750, 783 (1988) (White, J., dissenting)(citing the plurality opinion and the dissenting opinions of Burger, C.J. and Rehnquist and Stevens, JJ.)
In Sao Paulo’s case, they are seeking to clean up the aesthetics of the city and are not targeting a specific type of billboard ad, but all billboard ads. The fact that an entire medium of communication is being banned could be seen as a content-based interest, however there are likely equally viable options to advertise other than billboards.