Is Outdoor Digital Signage Eco-Friendly?

Is your business eco-conscious? Are you unsure if outdoor digital signage is eco-friendly? Perhaps this will solve your dilemma.

You’re considering upgrading from print-based 1DayBanner.com advertising to digital advertising. You’ve already made the transition to online, but the problem is you’re not reaching the customer on the ground — those customers who enjoy a visit to Main Street or the shopping malls.

The only way you know how to reach them is by using posters or billboards, which require huge amounts of paper and create even more waste, which is a black mark against your business in these eco-friendly times. If you need more waste bins check out the skip bin hire prices here.

You’ve looked at outdoor digital signage as a solution and perhaps created an “objection list.” Perhaps that list looks something like this:

In a surprising decision, the New Jersey Supreme Court found earlier this month that a township ordinance prohibiting digital billboards violated the free speech provisions of the U.S. and New Jersey constitutions.

Franklin Township, New Jersey, a suburban community in Somerset County, enacted sign regulations that allowed billboards in zoning districts near interstate highways.  The regulations prohibited digital billboards.  The township justified its regulations on the basis of traffic safety and aesthetics.  Various township bodies suggested that the ban on digital billboards was enacted because the township did not have sufficient information on the safety of digital billboards in order to craft appropriate regulations.  Because state law imposes dispersal requirements on billboards, it was established that the township could have just three static billboards and just one digital billboard.

In 2009, E&J Equities sought a variance to allow the placement of a digital billboard in the township.  Because digital billboards were not allowed, the request was brought before the township’s Zoning Board of Adjustment.  The ZBA did not approve the application.

Thereafter, E&J brought an action against the township in state trial court.  The trial court found that the township failed to meet intermediate scrutiny because the ban on digital billboards constituted a ban on an entire medium of speech and overly burdened commercial speech.  On appeal, the Appellate Division reversed, finding that the digital billboard ban was a time, place, and manner restriction and that the digital billboard ban was content neutral and survived intermediate scrutiny.

The Supreme Court chose to analyze the law under the standard for noncommercial speech articulated in Clark v. Community for Creative Non-Violence and Ward v. Rock Against Racisminstead of the more lenient commercial speech standard in Central Hudson Gas & Electric Company v. Public Service Commission.  This choice was made at least partially on the basis that the record before the ZBA indicated that the proposed billboard would contain at least some noncommercial messages.  The court held that the ordinance was content neutral and further held that the township’s ordinance did not foreclose an entire medium of communication.

On August 26, 2016, the Texas Appeals Court for the Third District in Austin voided the two sections of the Texas Highway Beautification Act (“HBA”) addressing permits, licenses, enforcement, and regulation on the ground that the Act violated the First Amendment’s protection of Free Speech after the US Supreme Court’s decision in Reed vs Gilbert.

Insider talked with Richard Rothfelder a partner at Rothfelder Falick about the ramifications of the decision. Rothfelder is a billboard legal expert and has written “Compensability and Valuation of Billboards and Cell Towers under Texas Condemnation Law.”

The Court held in an unanimous decision that Subchapters B and C of the Texas HBA, which deal with permits, licenses, enforcement actions, and regulations on height, size, and spacing pertaining to off-premise signs, to be unconstitutional under the First Amendment for violating Free Speech.  It did so because the Act contained “unconstitutional content-based restrictions on speech.”

More specifically, the US Supreme Court held in its 2015 decision in Reed vs. Town of Gilbert that the First Amendment is violated when speech, including that communicated on signage, is regulated based on the content of the message displayed on the sign, as opposed to mere “time, manner, and placement” restrictions. In Reed, the City’s regulations on the size, location, and time a sign could be displayed depending on whether it displayed a message about church services.

In Auspro, similarly, the Texas HBA exempted from regulation signs displaying messages about elections. In both cases, one must read the content displayed on the sign to determine what, if any, regulations apply to that type of message. Further, while the facts in Auspro were originally limited to a “Vote for Ron Paul” election sign, the Court went on to note that the Texas HBA also contained numerous other regulations and exemptions based on the content communicated on the particular sign, including on-premise vs off-premise signs. For example, a message displayed on a sign advertising goods, services, or businesses located on the same site as the sign would be considered an exempt on-premise sign under the Act. By contrast, if the same structure advertised goods, services, or businesses located at sites other than where the sign was situated, it would be considered an off-premise sign subject to a laundry list of permit, license, and regulatory requirements. Accordingly, the Court went beyond just the exemptions for election signs under the Act, and struck as unconstitutional those provisions on billboards as well.