home > newsroom In a Letter to the Editor, ACLU Clarifies Its Work in Free Speech Case June 25, 2002 Standard Examiner Letter to the Editor: The ACLU of Utah would like to take this opportunity to respond to the recently published letter (Judi Imlay, June 24, 2002) concerning Ogden’s attempt to silence free speech on private property in downtown Ogden by prohibiting signage displayed in vacant buildings. We agree with Ms. Imlay on several points. First, it is Ms. Imlay’s fundamental right to engage in First Amendment activities on her private property. If Ms. Imlay disagrees with the signs previously displayed by Mr. Edwards, she has the absolute right to express herself in a similar fashion. As Oliver Wendell Holmes stated in Abrams v. U.S in 1919, ultimate good "is better reached by free trade in ideas -- that the best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market." However, Ogden has revoked Ms. Imlay’s right to fight speech with more speech if she owns a vacant building. This is unfair and unconstitutional. We also agree with Ms. Imlay that this case is a “ridiculous” waste of time and money. Ogden is pursuing Mr. Edwards with an ordinance that is very similar to municipal ordinances that several courts, including the Supreme Court of the United States have found unconstitutional. If Ogden was really interested in removing visual clutter in the downtown area they could have done so in several ways. For example, Ogden could simply regulate the size and placement of political signs in vacant buildings without prohibiting signs based upon the content of their message. Most cities that seek to pursue the laudable goal of enhancing the business environment and quality of life for their residents by removing visual clutter properly recognize that the right to speak on one’s own property is a fundamental “stick” in the “bundle of rights” property owners enjoy under both state and federal constitutions. They do not prohibit speech based upon its content, but rather, limit the size or the number of signs allowed on the property. Ogden has not done this. Instead, they chose to pursue that goal by depriving property owners of the fundamental right to free speech on their own property. While the City allows certain speech it considers sufficiently related to the property, it prohibits all other speech, even core political speech directly related to the property. The result is that private property owners can be not only silenced but also thrown in jail simply for expressing their own opinions on their own property. As taxpayers, residents of Ogden should be outraged by this gross waste of money to fight for an ordinance that allows the government to intrude onto private property and prohibit fundamental free speech activities on that property. Janelle P. Eurick Staff Attorney

ACLU OF UTAH UNION OR FOUNDATION? | USER AGREEMENT | PRIVACY POLICY | CONTACT US © 2008 ACLU OF UTAH · 355 NORTH 300 WEST · SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84103 · T (801) 521-9862 · F (801) 532-2850