Tractor trailer displaying Christian message to remain along NY highway
We read:
"Alliance Defense Fund attorneys representing a Christian man reached a favorable settlement with the New York Department of Transportation, which agreed to allow Daniel Burritt's trailer donning a gospel message to remain on his private business property along a public highway. The tractor trailer had previously been cited as a "public nuisance," and NYDOT warned Burritt that it would be forcibly removed if the Christian message remained visible from the highway.
"No Christian should be singled out and penalized for sharing his beliefs," said ADF Legal Counsel Matt Bowman. "After reaching this settlement with NYDOT, we are pleased Mr. Burritt can now freely enjoy his First Amendment right to display a religious message on his own property."
In August 2007, Burritt placed a tractor trailer--where he stores supplies for his company, Acts II Construction, Inc.--on his private business property along U.S. Route 11. The trailer displays a gospel message to each direction of highway traffic and is one of many ways in which Burritt uses his property to evangelize.
He was cited that year by Gouverneur town officials over the message, but the charges were dropped after interaction with ADF attorneys. Burritt then received a letter in May 2008 from NYDOT stating his trailer was in violation of state law and would be declared a "public nuisance." NYDOT asserted that the trailer required a permit and must be removed or face forcible removal and legal action, even though it does not require permits for similarly displayed commercial messages.
ADF attorneys filed the lawsuit, Burritt v. New York State Department of Transportation, in June 2008 with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York, alleging the state violated the Constitution through its discriminatory treatment of Burritt's speech. After filing, an agreement was reached with NYDOT to let the trailer remain until a ruling could be rendered. The court issued a preliminary injunction last December preventing NYDOT from removing the trailer sign while the rest of the case was being litigated, and denied the state's motion to dismiss the case.
Source
Man allowed to use his own private property in a way that hurts nobody! Wow! How good our rulers are to us!
7 comments:
I am truly surprised that his First Amendment rights were upheld. Still, I expect a "non-hater" to burn it down.
It is amazing this even had to be litigated. What are the enforcement officials thinking? I don't see how his freedom of speech could be more obvious.
4:29 AM - I agree with you, but still, if it is Christian, it must be wrong. It's pretty crazy to me how much the Christians are being put down, but then, the Bible did say it will happen.
How nice of the NYSDOT to reach an agreement, especially since they clearly violated his First Amendment rights. And he required a permit to keep his trailer on his property? How typical of NY. This man is a fool if he doesn't sue!
DOT has a legal obligation to ensure the safety of the highway system. Signs and billboards placed in such a way and having such content that they are highly distracting to motorists can be forcibly removed under the laws governing DOT.
If DOT officials think this sign is distracting like that they are silly, but I can see where they are convinced that a (according to them) distracting sign has to be removed.
The conflict then is not a 1st ammendment one at all but a disagreement about whether the sign is a distraction to motorists, the presence of which is likely to lead to accidents.
Anon 6:11,
By that logic, anything placed on the side of the road that requires reading, like a billboard, is a safety hazard. Around where I live there are digital billboards that put up a new high def image every few seconds. If THAT isn't a distraction, then how can a black sigh with white lettering be so.
The conflict then is not a 1st ammendment one at all but a disagreement about whether the sign is a distraction to motorists, the presence of which is likely to lead to accidents.
The problem with this logic is that initially, the NYDOT sent a letter demanding that the sign be moved back off of the right of way 12 feet. The man complied with that and moved the sign. He also complied with a US DOT regulation on the size of the sign. In other words, he was made aware of the issues you bring up and followed the law.
The issue came when the NYDOT wanted him to remove the sign completely. There were signs of similar size and style along the same road that were left alone. Only this man's sign was targeted. Furthermore, if you read the statute under which they claimed to be able to tell him to remove the sign, the statute doesn't apply as it is not a sign for his business.
In the initial injunction, the judge found that this was a First Amendment issue. He did not rule on whether it was an issue of religious freedom as he ruled there was no need to rule on that as it was clearly a violation of the man's freedom of speech.
Post a Comment