<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Political signs a fundamental right of free speech?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.mountvernonnews.com/blog/index.php/2011/09/23/political-signs-a-fundamental-right-of-free-speech/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.mountvernonnews.com/blog/2011/09/23/political-signs-a-fundamental-right-of-free-speech/</link>
	<description>Discuss the local stories and questions.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 20 May 2013 01:22:00 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.5.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Docile Jim Brady</title>
		<link>http://www.mountvernonnews.com/blog/2011/09/23/political-signs-a-fundamental-right-of-free-speech/comment-page-1/#comment-8828</link>
		<dc:creator>Docile Jim Brady</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 27 Sep 2011 01:58:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.mountvernonnews.com/blog/2011/09/23/political-signs-a-fundamental-right-of-free-speech/#comment-8828</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[As always, if the issues decided are not clear, consult an Ohio attorney registered as &quot;active.&quot;


Euclid v. Mabel (1984), 19 Ohio App. 3d 235  
 --
Municipal ordinance prohibiting political yard signs and  limiting period of display and number of window signs violates  the First Amendment. 
~~~~~
Different issuse, but gives some interesting background.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/92-1856.ZO.html

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES No. 92-1856 CITY OF LADUE, et al., PETITIONERS v. MARGARET P. GILLEO 


 
 
 
   on writ of certiorari to the united states court 
 of appeals for the eighth circuit [June 13, 1994]
]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>As always, if the issues decided are not clear, consult an Ohio attorney registered as &#8220;active.&#8221;</p>
<p>Euclid v. Mabel (1984), 19 Ohio App. 3d 235  <br />
 &#8211;<br />
Municipal ordinance prohibiting political yard signs and  limiting period of display and number of window signs violates  the First Amendment.<br />
~~~~~<br />
Different issuse, but gives some interesting background.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/92-1856.ZO.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/92-1856.ZO.html</a></p>
<p>SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES No. 92-1856 CITY OF LADUE, et al., PETITIONERS v. MARGARET P. GILLEO </p>
<p>   on writ of certiorari to the united states court<br />
 of appeals for the eighth circuit [June 13, 1994]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Docile Jim Brady</title>
		<link>http://www.mountvernonnews.com/blog/2011/09/23/political-signs-a-fundamental-right-of-free-speech/comment-page-1/#comment-8814</link>
		<dc:creator>Docile Jim Brady</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 23 Sep 2011 17:44:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.mountvernonnews.com/blog/2011/09/23/political-signs-a-fundamental-right-of-free-speech/#comment-8814</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I have heard more than one attorney argue that a time limit of 30 or 45 days is wrong.
]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I have heard more than one attorney argue that a time limit of 30 or 45 days is wrong.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Dynamic Page Served (once) in 0.595 seconds -->
