PORT ST JOE, Fla. — The Rutherford Institute is urging the City of Port St. Joe, Fla., to work with a local business owner to find a prompt, practical resolution to a dispute involving a proposed 18-foot cross display on private property.
Drawing on more than four decades of experience helping citizens and public officials resolve disputes involving religious expression, free speech, land-use regulations and public safety, Institute attorneys offered recommendations aimed at balancing the legitimate interests of both sides: the City’s responsibility to enforce reasonable structural and public-safety requirements and the property owner’s First Amendment right to engage in religious expression on private property.
The Institute weighed in as a concerned civil liberties organization seeking a reasonable resolution that respects the legitimate interests of both sides.
As part of its continuing effort to educate the public and government officials about the constitutional protections afforded expressive displays on private property, the Institute has also issued a Constitutional Q&A, “The Right to Display First Amendment Messages on Private Property.”
“The First Amendment is not reserved for government-approved messages,” said constitutional attorney John W. Whitehead, president of The Rutherford Institute and author of Battlefield America: The War on the American People. “It protects the right to express religious, political and philosophical beliefs across the spectrum. Government may enforce legitimate, neutral safety rules, but it cannot favor some viewpoints, diminish others or make protected expression unnecessarily difficult.”
For more than four decades, The Rutherford Institute has defended individuals and organizations seeking to display a broad range of religious, political and philosophical messages on their own property or in places otherwise open to expression.
- In Harrisonburg, Va., the Institute intervened after city zoning officials threatened a church with criminal prosecution over pro-life signs displayed on church property. City ordinances permitted certain governmental, corporate, civic and holiday banners while prohibiting the church’s messages.
- In Ocala, Fla., Rutherford Institute attorneys defended sporting-goods store owners who were ordered to remove a Gadsden flag bearing the words “Don’t Tread on Me” while governmental flags remained permitted.
- The Institute also challenged Grayson County, Va., after local officials denied approval for an interfaith spiritual organization to establish a retreat center on privately owned land.
The Institute’s work has also included defending the right to display Christmas symbols and other religious messages. Its longstanding guidance emphasizes that private religious expression may not be excluded merely because it is religious and that privately sponsored displays in public forums generally must be treated according to the same reasonable rules that apply to comparable secular displays.
Although the First Amendment generally protects signs, flags, symbols, artwork and other expressive displays on private property, those rights are not absolute. Local governments may enforce reasonable, content-neutral rules addressing matters such as structural safety, size, height, lighting, setbacks and placement. However, those regulations may not favor certain messages, exempt government-approved topics or viewpoints while prohibiting others, or impose unnecessary burdens because officials object to a display’s religious or political meaning.
Constitutional Q&A: The Right to Display First Amendment Messages on Private Property
Letter to Officials in Port St Joe, FL
Article posted with permission from John Whitehead
