To paraphrase Voltaire, I disagree with what you say but I will defend to the death the government’s right to prosecute you for what you say.
That’s apparently the thought process in Olyphant Borough, Pennsylvania. Marine veteran Dave Bliler lives in this town. He’s also not thrilled with any level of government, at least according to the sign he posted in the front yard of property he owns.
Here it is, in all its uncensored glory, as depicted in his First Amendment lawsuit [PDF] against the town he resides in:
The borough did not care for this particular sign, despite it being posted on private property. The city said Bliler needed a permit to display this sign in his own front yard, despite not demanding the same statutory cooperation from others with similarly-sized or -located signs.
So, it seems the town only has a problem with someone stating the “government” should be “fucked.” But when it comes to one particular fucker (formerly) employed by the federal government, Olyphant Borough can’t be bothered to re-read its sign-related statutes.
While these Trump supporters were ignored, Dave Bliler was targeted by the town government:
Shortly after the Blilers erected the Sign, the Borough sent them an enforcement letter, informing them that the Sign was in violation of the Ordinance’s permit and size requirements. The letter threatened to haul the Blilers before a judge and impose a $500 fine per day if they were found to be in violation of the Ordinance. Though their neighborhood is littered with signs that appear to lack a permit, to the Blilers’ knowledge, they are the only ones facing the Borough’s enforcement action.
Selective enforcement. That’s always a problem when it comes to the Constitution. It’s even more of problem when it involves law enforcement agencies (local officers were involved) and a statute that doesn’t actually outlaw the sign the town arbitrarily decided was illegal.
The Ordinance limits the number of signs a property owner can display. Id. § 916.A.1. In general, property owners are limited to “one sign per premises or property.” For property fronting more than one street, the Ordinance allows for one sign on each street front. But residents may have more than one sign depending on the content of the additional sign(s), including (1) signs that list the name and address of the occupants (two additional signs), (2) handicapped parking signs (no numerical limitation), (3) private drive signs (one additional sign per driveway), (4) security and warning signs (one additional sign), and (5) real estate signs (one additional sign). §§ 908.J, 908.L., 908.M., 908.O, 916.A.2.
The Ordinance contains different size limitations depending on the content of the sign. In residential areas, signs generally may not be larger than six square feet. But “contractors and artisans” may display signs up to twelve square feet promoting their businesses while they are working on the property. And “[s]igns for permitted non-residential or permitted “institutional uses” may be thirty-two square feet. These latter types of signs may also be erected on each frontage and each “entrance [] or exit” to the property.
So, where does Dave’s sign reside in terms of regulatory action? Well, the Bliler’s house fronts only one street, which would seemingly limit it to one sign of six square feet or less. On the other hand, whoever’s able to call themselves a “contractor or artisan” is able to double the square footage of their sign. Beyond all of that is this: FUCKING AMERICA YO. You own the property, you should be able to post whatever size sign you want.
According to the ordinance, the Bliler’s “Fuck the Government” sign is a “temporary sign.” Temporary signs have no permit requirement and no legal limit beyond whatever the town declares to be the time period considers “temporary.” The Blilers posted their sign on October 13, 2023. Three days later, Dave Bliler was visited by the city’s chief of police — a visit that culminated with Chief James DeVoe coming to the conclusion the sign did not violate city statutes.
Less than a month later, though, the Blilers received a letter from the city’s zoning office informing them that their “Fuck the Government” sign was illegal because they had not obtained a permit to display it. The letter also said the sign was too “big” to fall into any other loopholes in this zoning law.
Since the sign had no chance of complying with this selective enforcement (it was 32 sq. ft. and the law outlawed anything bigger than 6 sq. ft.), the Blilers took it down. Then they sued.
Not only are the Blilers censoring themselves in terms of the now-removed “Fuck the Government” sign, they’re also proactively censoring further political expression. As the lawsuit notes, the Blilers intended to erect another sign saying nothing more than “GOVERNMENT CORRUPTION.” But now that they’re facing at least $40/day in fines from the borough already, they’ve decided to put that plan on ice until their civil rights lawsuit is sorted out.
We’ll have to wait until the borough responds to see what arguments it will raise in its own defense. Local law enforcement officers never bothered to speak on behalf of the borough. In fact, the only law enforcement officer to personally engage with the Blilers stated the sign was protected speech. The borough obviously doesn’t believe it is. But it has yet to say anything about the content of the sign, choosing to focus instead on the sign’s size, as if that alone will be enough to allow it to exit this lawsuit with its pocketbook and statutes intact.
That’s not going to happen. The borough needs to explain why it has chosen to target obvious political speech, especially when it has previously chosen to ignore other obviously political speech (the pro-Trump signs that violate the city’s statutes).
Good luck with that. Governments can sometimes get away with bad laws as long as they can show they’re enforcing them equally. But adding content-based restrictions to selective enforcement almost always adds up to declaring vague statutes dead and putting city residents on the hook for the misdeeds of those engaged in the selective enforcement of an already bad law.
