Star Carol

Our first impression of a community is its visual environment, which is reflected from the pretty integration of the built and natural forms. Visual pollution is defined as the whole of irregular formations that are unattractive and affects people’s ability to enjoy or appreciate the view and vista.  Anything that interferes with the “pretty scenes” and other distortion may become a cause of visual pollution. With the rapid increase of population world widebuilding sector became the major source of visual pollution especially in the city center.

Join us today when we sweep through the surprisingly large catalog of titles devoted to signage.  We will borrow from our previous coverage of pathway standards.   Use the login credentials at the upper right of our home page.

Pathways 100

Visual Pollution

Noteworthy court cases involving signage on colleges and universities:

1. Widmar v. Vincent (1981): In this Supreme Court case, the court held that public universities cannot discriminate against student groups based on their religious or political beliefs, including the display of signs or other expressive activities.
2. Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District (1969): This Supreme Court case involved a challenge to a school district’s ban on wearing black armbands to protest the Vietnam War. The court held that students have a First Amendment right to express their views through symbols and signs, as long as it does not disrupt the educational environment.
3. Healy v. James (1972): In this Supreme Court case, the court held that colleges and universities cannot impose a prior restraint on student speech, including the display of signs, unless there is a clear and present danger of imminent violence or disruption.
4. Rosenberger v. Rector and Visitors of the University of Virginia (1995): In this Supreme Court case, the court held that public universities cannot discriminate against student groups based on their viewpoint, including the display of signs or other expressive activities.
5. Texas v. Johnson (1989): This Supreme Court case involved a challenge to a Texas law that prohibited the desecration of the American flag. The court held that flag burning is a form of symbolic speech protected by the First Amendment, including on college and university campuses.

Court cases involving municipal signage:

1. Reed v. Town of Gilbert (2015): This Supreme Court case involved a challenge to the town of Gilbert, Arizona’s sign code, which regulated the size, location, and duration of signs based on their content. The court held that the sign code was a content-based restriction on speech and therefore subject to strict scrutiny.
2. City of Ladue v. Gilleo (1994): In this Supreme Court case, the court struck down a municipal ordinance that banned the display of signs on residential property, except for signs that fell within specific exemptions. The court held that the ban was an unconstitutional restriction on the freedom of speech.
3. Metromedia, Inc. v. San Diego (1981): This Supreme Court case involved a challenge to a San Diego ordinance that banned off-premises advertising signs while allowing on-premises signs. The court held that the ordinance was an unconstitutional restriction on free speech, as it discriminated against certain types of speech.
4. City of Ladue v. Center for the Study of Responsive Law, Inc. (1980): In this Supreme Court case, the court upheld a municipal ordinance that prohibited the display of signs on public property, but only if the signs were posted for longer than 10 days. The court held that the ordinance was a valid time, place, and manner restriction on speech.
5. City of Boerne v. Flores (1997): This Supreme Court case involved a challenge to a municipal sign code that regulated the size, location, and content of signs in the city. The court held that the sign code violated the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, as it burdened the exercise of religion without a compelling government interest.

Finally got my nameplate! #Official #newPI pic.twitter.com/gLgMv4vvCb

— Ashley Dalrymple (@dr_shlee) April 5, 2023