Brickbats

Brickbat: What a Jackass!

|

Baldwin Park, California, businessman Robert Ehlers has filed a lawsuit challenging $12,400 in fines the city has levied against him for hanging two banners portraying city council member Ricardo Pacheco as a corrupt "jackass" and urging voters not to re-elect Pacheco in 2020. Ehlers hung the banners after a jury found Pacheco responsible for racial and sexual discrimination against former police chief Lili Hadsell. Hadsell was awarded $7 million in damages. Officials say the signs are not in compliance with the city's sign ordinance, but Ehlers' lawsuit says the city routinely allows signs that don't comply with the law and he is being singled out because of the message on his banners.

Advertisement

NEXT: Judge Willett's Change of Heart

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Content-based viewpoint discrimination? Sounds like another day in California.

    1. If sign size bans are consistently enforced, they can probably get away with it.

  2. Ah yes, banning political speech someone doesn’t like. I thought the S.C cleared this one up.

  3. Looks like Ehlers is about to go round two for losing a lawsuit. Guy really needs to get a lawyer who can explain to him why doing this stuff is a bad idea.

    1. Or perhaps, he should consult a lawyer regarding what the characteristics of signs that are permitted, and which are not, and make his sign follow the rules. The political content of the signs should be permitted per the first amendment. If he can show examples of signs of similar sizes and in similar locations (he says “the city routinely allows signs that don’t comply with the law”) then he’s got a good argument, though I’d still consult a lawyer – because it could get more expensive than the fine is now.

  4. keeping this guy around is a windfall for attorneys and litigants. “Here’s $7 million for you! And $7 million for you, and $7 million for you…”

  5. Plaintiffs allege that they have been subject to adverse treatment because they oppose rampant corruption by city officials…

    Are you crazy? Corrupt officials are the last ones you want to piss off!

    1. Way to easy to become a victim of suicide .

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.