Carpenters union sues Irvine over signs warning about sex offenders
https://www.ocregister.com/2021/03/...rvine-over-signs-warning-about-sex-offenders/
https://www.ocregister.com/2021/03/...rvine-over-signs-warning-about-sex-offenders/
Carpenters union sues Irvine over signs warning about sex offenders
- Thread starter WTTCHMN
- Start date
Looked up the sex offender stats after reading that.
https://www.city-data.com/so/so-Irvine-California.html
https://www.city-data.com/so/so-Irvine-California.html
Attachments
sleepy5136
Well-known member
I can't read any articles from ocregister without subscribing to them. I refuse to subscribe. how are you able to read articles from them?WTTCHMN said:
iacrenter
Well-known member
Carpenters union sues Irvine over signs warning about sex offenders
The city has threatened criminal prosecution unless the Southwest Regional Council of Carpenters takes down the banners
By Scott Schwebke | sschwebke@scng.com | Orange County Register
PUBLISHED: March 3, 2021 at 5:03 p.m. | UPDATED: March 3, 2021 at 5:03 p.m.
A carpenters union has filed a lawsuit alleging the city of Irvine has threatened it with criminal prosecution and fines for displaying banners questioning whether local neighborhoods are safe from sex offenders.
The Southwest Regional Council of Carpenters, which is based in Los Angeles and has more than 55,000 members, claims in a U.S. District Court lawsuit filed last month that Irvine?s sign ordinance violates its First Amendment rights guaranteeing free speech.
?The city has become now the speech police ? master planning what citizens can say to the public on a public sidewalk,? the suit alleges. ?Not only has the city censored plaintiffs? speech it does not like, it has likewise restricted speech based on content through its sign ordinance by expressly exempting other favored speech.?
The union is seeking unspecified damages and a court order prohibiting Irvine officials from making further threats regarding the banners placed at the corners of Cadence and Merit and Irvine Boulevard and Modjeska.
Irvine officials and those with the SWRCC declined to comment on the suit Wednesday.
The union has for years protested labor disputes by displaying banners on public sidewalks in Irvine without threats of censorship, according to the lawsuit.
As recently, as last fall and early winter, the SWRCC displayed a sign on sidewalks shaming Rivian, an automaker with a facility in Irvine, during a labor dispute with the company. SWRCC officials did not provide details regarding the nature of the dispute and Rivian officials did not respond to a request for comment.
The two signs currently displayed by the union mention the dispute but also question whether Irvine neighborhoods are safe and include a bar code linking to the Meghan?s Law website, which provides information about registered sex offenders.
?The city would prefer the public not know about this information because it may slow the sale of homes in its master planned city and may show that its city may not (be) as desirable a place to live,? says the suit. ?The only difference from the prior banners is that the message on the current banners has changed ? a message the city disapproves. Free speech is not free when the censor can jump around from reason to reason for the sole purpose of stifling disfavored speech.?
SWRCC officials did not explain the union?s rationale for including the sex offender message on the banners.
In 2020, for the 15th consecutive year, city officials declared Irvine the safest municipality of its size in the nation for violent crime, based on FBI crime data.
According to a city spokesperson, there are 74 registered sex offenders living in Irvine, which is considered low for a city with a population of 273,000.
Irvine officials claim the SWRCC banners violate its zoning ordinance, which requires commercial speech signs be no larger than 3 square feet, the lawsuit says.
?It (the ordinance) applies only to commercial signs, not labor dispute or sexual predator protest signs. Plaintiffs? banners ? on their face ? do not meet these definitions. The SWRCC is a nonprofit labor organization.?
The complaint also alleges there are numerous banners in Irvine larger than those displayed by the carpenters union.
?One need only drive around the city for an hour to see the hundreds, if not thousands, of signs ? larger, smaller, multiple together, multiple on the same street block ? that undercut any justification to limit non-commercial banners in general or prohibiting plaintiffs? banners specifically,? the suit says.
The city has threatened criminal prosecution unless the Southwest Regional Council of Carpenters takes down the banners
By Scott Schwebke | sschwebke@scng.com | Orange County Register
PUBLISHED: March 3, 2021 at 5:03 p.m. | UPDATED: March 3, 2021 at 5:03 p.m.
A carpenters union has filed a lawsuit alleging the city of Irvine has threatened it with criminal prosecution and fines for displaying banners questioning whether local neighborhoods are safe from sex offenders.
The Southwest Regional Council of Carpenters, which is based in Los Angeles and has more than 55,000 members, claims in a U.S. District Court lawsuit filed last month that Irvine?s sign ordinance violates its First Amendment rights guaranteeing free speech.
?The city has become now the speech police ? master planning what citizens can say to the public on a public sidewalk,? the suit alleges. ?Not only has the city censored plaintiffs? speech it does not like, it has likewise restricted speech based on content through its sign ordinance by expressly exempting other favored speech.?
The union is seeking unspecified damages and a court order prohibiting Irvine officials from making further threats regarding the banners placed at the corners of Cadence and Merit and Irvine Boulevard and Modjeska.
Irvine officials and those with the SWRCC declined to comment on the suit Wednesday.
The union has for years protested labor disputes by displaying banners on public sidewalks in Irvine without threats of censorship, according to the lawsuit.
As recently, as last fall and early winter, the SWRCC displayed a sign on sidewalks shaming Rivian, an automaker with a facility in Irvine, during a labor dispute with the company. SWRCC officials did not provide details regarding the nature of the dispute and Rivian officials did not respond to a request for comment.
The two signs currently displayed by the union mention the dispute but also question whether Irvine neighborhoods are safe and include a bar code linking to the Meghan?s Law website, which provides information about registered sex offenders.
?The city would prefer the public not know about this information because it may slow the sale of homes in its master planned city and may show that its city may not (be) as desirable a place to live,? says the suit. ?The only difference from the prior banners is that the message on the current banners has changed ? a message the city disapproves. Free speech is not free when the censor can jump around from reason to reason for the sole purpose of stifling disfavored speech.?
SWRCC officials did not explain the union?s rationale for including the sex offender message on the banners.
In 2020, for the 15th consecutive year, city officials declared Irvine the safest municipality of its size in the nation for violent crime, based on FBI crime data.
According to a city spokesperson, there are 74 registered sex offenders living in Irvine, which is considered low for a city with a population of 273,000.
Irvine officials claim the SWRCC banners violate its zoning ordinance, which requires commercial speech signs be no larger than 3 square feet, the lawsuit says.
?It (the ordinance) applies only to commercial signs, not labor dispute or sexual predator protest signs. Plaintiffs? banners ? on their face ? do not meet these definitions. The SWRCC is a nonprofit labor organization.?
The complaint also alleges there are numerous banners in Irvine larger than those displayed by the carpenters union.
?One need only drive around the city for an hour to see the hundreds, if not thousands, of signs ? larger, smaller, multiple together, multiple on the same street block ? that undercut any justification to limit non-commercial banners in general or prohibiting plaintiffs? banners specifically,? the suit says.