SCRANTON – An Olyphant family alleges their rights to free speech and expression are being infringed upon by their borough and its zoning official, who had taken exception to a sign posted outside their home which read “F— THE GOVERNMENT.”
Dave Bliler, Chelsea Bliler and Paige Bliler filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania on Dec. 12 versus Olyphant Borough and its Zoning Officer William Shigo. All parties are of Olyphant.
“Peacefully expressing speech through signs on one’s own property is a central liberty protected by the First Amendment. The right to display opinions on matters of public concern has long been vital to the concept of American identity and trumps all but the most important and narrowly tailored government interests. Attempts to regulate such speech carry a heavy presumption of invalidity,” the suit says.
“The Borough’s sign ordinance tramples this liberty. It limits most residential property owners to just one sign that is no larger than six square feet. Whether the sign is for ideological causes, political campaigns or religious faith, almost all signs are subject to this restriction. And for the one sign that most residential property owners may have, it is subject to a permitting regime. The words on the sign must pass the Borough’s content reviewers, applicants must pay a fee, and the Borough can take as much time as it likes in adjudicating permit decisions.”
The suit adds that “despite these restrictions on Borough residents, the Borough has completely exempted itself from the ordinance” – ergo, “while Borough residents may erect just one small sign on their property, the government may place as many signs – of whatever size and on whatever topics – as it likes on its property and in addition, the ordinance grants favorable treatment to other types of signs based on their content.”
“The ordinance violates the United States Constitution, and the Blilers are the victims of the Borough’s unlawful ordinance. In October 2023, the Blilers placed a four-by-eight-foot thin plastic sign on the front of their house in a residential Olyphant neighborhood. The sign said, ‘F— THE 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,” the suit states.
“Fearful of facing this significant fine, the Blilers have, for now, opted to take down the sign rather than risk punishment. But their desire to continue expressing their message has not dissipated. To the contrary, their criticism of the government has intensified. And rightly so – the ordinance is an impermissibly restrictive regulation of speech, and the Borough’s attempts to silence the Blilers’ speech constitute viewpoint discrimination. When citizens are prohibited from criticizing the government on their own property but the government can say whatever it wants, the First Amendment is offended. And the First Amendment prohibits the ordinance’s favoritism for other signs based on their content. The Court should enjoin defendants from enforcing the ordinance and award the Blilers the other relief requested herein.”
For counts of violation of freedom of speech, equal protection and due process under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, the plaintiffs are seeking the Court to preliminarily and permanently enjoin defendants from enforcing the ordinance; to preliminarily and permanently enjoin defendants from enforcing the ordinance against the sign; to declare the ordinance unconstitutional on its face; to declare the ordinance unconstitutional as applied to the sign; to award the Blilers nominal and compensatory damages; to award the Blilers reasonable attorney fees, costs and expenses pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1988 and to grant such other and further relief as this Court should find just and proper.
The plaintiffs are represented by Eric Arthur Sell and Josh Dixon of the Center for American Liberty in Mount Airy, Md., plus Karin M. Sweigart of Dhillon Law Group, Inc. in San Francisco, Calif.
The defendants have not yet obtained legal counsel.
U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania case 3:23-cv-02063
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com