Judge Rejects Liquor Firms’ Bid to Void Billboard Law

A federal judge has upheld an Oakland ordinance prohibiting liquor billboards in residential areas and sites within 1,000 feet of schools, places of worship, licensed child-care facilities and city youth recreation centers.

The judge, in rejecting free-speech challenges by two billboard companies, said the U.S. Supreme Court has authorized time, manner and place restrictions on speech to carry out certain government goals. In this case, Oakland adopted the measure in 1997 in an effort to combat underage drinking.

“The ordinance is not a blanket ban on speech about alcoholic beverages,” U.S. District Judge William Alsup wrote in dismissing the billboard companies’ suit. “The ordinance is a reasonable fit to the goal of decreasing youth demand for alcoholic beverages.”

The judge’s ruling last Thursday became public Tuesday.

Oakland’s ordinance, which does not apply to signs in stores, on trucks that carry products or on taxis, also exempts billboards that face interstate highways. It was modeled after a 1994 Baltimore law that has survived federal court challenges.

Similar measures have been adopted in New York, Chicago, Cleveland and Tacoma, Wash., with mixed results in court. A federal judge has blocked a similar measure in Los Angeles.

The two sign companies, Eller Media Co. and Outdoor Systems, said the Oakland ordinance barred liquor ads on more than 90% of the signs they leased in the city. They said the ban, which became effective in June 1998, infringed on their speech rights.

They noted that the U.S. Supreme Court has invalidated a federal statute requiring cable companies to fully scramble pornography channels to ensure that children cannot view nudity and has invalidated a federal law placing a so-called decency standard on speech over the Internet.

“The ultimate point is an important constitutional principle,” said Rex Heinke, the companies’ attorney. “Can the government ban speech on a particular topic when it doesn’t like that speech?”

He said the judge’s decision would probably be appealed to the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

Oakland officials pointed out the ad ban probably survived constitutional scrutiny because it is part of a comprehensive plan to reduce teenage drinking. The city has implemented substance abuse programs, youth athletic events and undercover operations to catch markets selling liquor to teenagers.

“This probably would not have been constitutional if it wasn’t part of a comprehensive approach against underage drinking,” said Mark Wald, deputy city attorney for Oakland.

Bans on certain forms of speech are commonplace nationwide. The U.S. Supreme Court has upheld various limitations on speech in pursuit of government goals, such as allowing airline passengers unobstructed passage in airports.

The nation’s highest court ruled in 1992 that airports may prohibit groups from soliciting donations in terminals, but must allow distribution of free literature in designated areas.