Protest sign permit and constitutional rights

[Clore]

A fellow zoning officer just asked me about a potential application. He has a person who wants to carry a sign at a local government agency, in protest. Our zoning ordinance does not allow temporary signs and our definition of political sign refers only to announcements of candidates for office. All of our permits require a property owner's signature. Obviously, the local agency is not going to want this person with the sign there.
Would we be infringing on constitutional rights to deny this application (if one comes in)?
Has anyone had any similar occurrences?

[boiker]

This had bad press written all over it. My recommendation is to allow the protest/sign on the public property.

[otterpop]

A fellow zoning officer just asked me about a potential application. He has a person who wants to carry a sign at a local government agency, in protest. Our zoning ordinance does not allow temporary signs and our definition of political sign refers only to announcements of candidates for office. All of our permits require a property owner's signature. Obviously, the local agency is not going to want this person with the sign there.
Would we be infringing on constitutional rights to deny this application (if one comes in)?
Has anyone had any similar occurrences?

If the person carrying the sign and the sign isn't affixed to a building or other structure, then I would say the protest sign is a First Amendment issue and does not require a permit or permission. To use a sign ordinance to keep away bad press for the local agency would likely give the agency a black eye. Does he need a permit from the police for public demonstration? That I do not know because I do not know your local laws.

I have participated in protests at federal government offices (the Forest Service) and we did not have to have a permit or permission to do so. We just had to keep moving in the public area and not interfere with people going in and out of the building.

[mike gurnee]

I would say a hand-held protest sign is not a zoning issue. Police may have some restrictions, however. BTW, your code should address what we call "first amendment signs".

[Clore]

I would say a hand-held protest sign is not a zoning issue. Police may have some restrictions, however. BTW, your code should address what we call "first amendment signs".

I absolutely agree.

[Seabishop]

I don't think you should deny or approve a permit like that. It doesn't need a sign permit anymore than someone wearing a t-shirt for a business needs a sign permit.

[Clore]

Interesting. Our sign ordinance states that any signs not specifically listed in a table in the ordinance as permitted are prohibited. Never thought of a tshirt. I can easily agree that it's not a land use and therefore has nothing to do with zoning.

[Otis]

I agree with what has been said by others here. In most cases the hand carried sign would not need a sign permit. In my experience such protesters are either (a) crackpots, that most people ignore, or (b) right, and it would do the government good to address the issue.

[Dan Staley]

This isn't a zoning issue. Your code is silent on this for a reason:

No blocking of the entrances, thank you Mr/Ms applicant. And please, Mr/Ms applicant no pornography or cuss words on your sign on public property; we can't enforce it, but we'd appreciate it an awful lot. Please feel free to use the restroom, and our coffee isn't the greatest but it'll keep you going. And if you'd be so kind as to park where the employees do, rather than in visitors, we'd appreciate it ever so much.

[Clore]

Dan- I really like that approach.
Fortunately, our local government isn't the one being protested. But someone feels they have been wronged by "the government" and they do have the right to express that and perhaps have their complaint addressed. I don't know a lot about the person's issue, but they apparently had their license revoked for failure to do something and do not speak very good English, so it could be that whatever they were asked to do was not clear to them and some process needs to be added to address this.
Again, I don't know the facts, but constitutional rights are sacred.