That was until this week's Washington State Supreme Court decision, which upheld the now-defunct ban. The 6-3 ruling should have no immediate effect on that status quo: No one is pushing to reinstate the law, and even City Attorney Tom Carr, who argued the case, says he opposes a renewal of the ban. But the long-term implications of the decision, which says that utility poles are not a "traditional public forum" for free speech, are far from clear.
The ruling, which came down Thursday, September 9, is the final stop for the city's lawsuit against Mighty Movers, whose brightly colored signs once adorned hundreds of telephone poles throughout the city. The city sued to recover the cost of tearing down Mighty Movers' signs, which were illegal under the old poster ban. Mighty Movers filed a countersuit, claiming the law was an unconstitutional restriction on free speech. A King County Superior Court judge ruled against the company, but the state appeals court later overturned the decision, ruling that poles are a "traditional public forum" because they are in the city's right-of-way, which is itself a public forum.
The Supreme Court's decision reverses that ruling, determining that while poles are in a public forum, "the poles do not, by virtue of that location, become a public forum" themselves. If posters are allowed on poles, the ruling reasons, what's to stop people from slapping bumper stickers on government vehicles, or spraying graffiti on public buildings?
That's precisely the argument City Attorney Carr has made all along. "One of our traditional public forums is a park," Carr says. "Does that mean that every tree, every piece of play equipment, is a traditional forum, even though it's against the law? That troubles me." But Dave Meinert, a music promoter who was one of the ban's fiercest and most outspoken opponents, calls that a "silly, very lawyerly" argument. "Using trees in a park or putting bumper stickers on government vehicles is illegal. It's vandalism," Meinert says. In contrast, "Telephone poles have been used as a legal public forum for decades."
The ruling doesn't reinstate the poster ban, and no one is making the case to do so. Council member Nick Licata says the city "has rules and regulations in place, and they seem to be working fine." But even Carr acknowledges that Meinert's worst fear--that "someone will push for a new ban" in the future--is not unfounded. "We have a council that supports the music industry and supports posters," Carr says. "The next council and mayor could be totally different. This [ruling] made it possible that in the future free speech will be restricted, and that's unfortunate."
Meinert, characteristically, puts it more bluntly. "[The court's] reasoning is bullshit," he says. "It worries me that the city can put these kind of limits on our free speech."
