Ban against billboards ruled too ambiguous
The attorney general's office wants a rehearing of the issue.
Published Aug. 25, 2006
Three Missouri pornography stores won their case against a law that prohibited sexually suggestive billboards from being displayed along state highways.
The 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals repealed the law saying it was too broad.
The original legislation was passed in 2004 under the direction of Sen. Matt Bartle, R-Lee's Summit.
The legislation claimed billboards of a sexually suggestive nature could harm minors, reduce traffic safety and drop property values of the areas involved.
Gene Gruender, owner of Passions Video Inc., said the original legislation was unnecessary.
"The bill was pushed through very forcefully by a number of very zealous legislators who really didn't care whose rights they stepped on," Gruender said. "Sen. Bartle would certainly be at the top of the list and would be the first to tell you that he was a zealot about it."
The legislation required business owners to remove the offending billboards by mid-2007.
The law allowed restricted billboards for those businesses within one mile of the highway. Under the legislation, the size of signs was regulated, and they were only allowed to give basic information about the business and age restrictions on the property.
Several companies were affected following the passage of the legislation, prompting some, such as Passions Video in Boonville, Gala Entertainment in Kansas City and Lion's Den to file suit against Attorney General Jay Nixon.
Richard Bryant, a Kansas City appellate lawyer, represented Satin Dolls and Passions Video, two of the businesses involved in the lawsuit.
Bryant said he and the plaintiffs in the case believed the legislation was far more restrictive than necessary.
"Matt Bartle is nobody's fool," Bryant said. "I am confident that he knew it was too broad when he drafted it. He's having a difficult time proving that these billboards are different than any other billboards."
When the case was brought before the 8th Circuit Court Panel, which included three judges, the ruling stated the legislation was not written narrowly enough.
As a result, it did not aid the state's goal of lessening adverse effects of sexually oriented businesses.
Both Bryant and Gruender said if the legislation had not been overturned, there could have been a significant business impact.
"We're a highway-based business and travelers are our primary consumers," Gruender said. "If there's no signs to let people know that we're there, we're going to dry up pretty quick."
John Fougere, spokesman for the Attorney General's office, said the state plans to seek a full rehearing with regard to this issue.
"Our intention is to seek a rehearing in front of the full 8th Circuit Court of Appeals," Fougere said. "The ruling on Monday was just in front of a three-judge panel."
According to Fougere, Bartle plans to file a new bill aimed at the same genre of sexually explicit advertisement.
"Communities did not ask for a fight with the pornography industry," Bartle stated in a news release. "It is the pornographers who continue their aggressive expansion with no regard for the erosion of societal values they inevitably cause."
Regardless of the prospect of rehearing, Gruender remains confident of the outcome.
"If the appellate court reviews it, it will come to the same decision," Gruender said. "There was no fear of losing from the start. It was just a question of how much money and time it would cost."