Signs knocking OKC are protected speech, court finds

A southwest Oklahoma City landowner who irked neighbors and city officials with critical remarks painted on signs had every right to speak his mind, a federal judge said.

U.S. District Judge Scott Palk wrote in a July 22 order that the city's sign ordinance, used to prosecute Fredrick Knutson for caustic commentary dating back years, is unconstitutional.

“We knew what they were really mad about was the message,” Keith Nedwick, a Norman attorney representing Knutson, said Tuesday.

Knutson has 10 acres at SW 89 and Council Road.

His property is zoned for agricultural use, and has been since he bought it in 2003.

Knutson' s“multiple” attempts to have the property rezoned for uses besides agriculture were denied by city officials, the judge wrote.

So Knutson painted signs on farm equipment and other objects, “critical of and derogatory toward” neighbors, city government and city officials, including Ward 3 Councilman Larry McAtee.

Still, Knutson had never received a citation despite numerous complaints that signs, displays, inoperable vehicles and high grass on his property violated city codes.

That changed in September 2012, when a code inspector issued four citations, alleging Knutson was violating a section of the sign code limiting the number and size of “noncommercial, expressive” signs allowed in residential areas.

City attorneys had decided limits on residential signs applied, despite the land' s agricultural zoning, because Knutson' s property has a residence, as do neighbors' properties.

Knutson was convicted at a trial in Municipal Court and ordered to pay $400 plus costs for each violation.

In 2014, the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals reversed the convictions, ordering that the citations be dismissed.

The signs then went back up. And that June, Knutson filed a federal lawsuit, contending the city violated the First Amendment.

By hauling him into court, he said, the city retaliated against him for exercising his freespeech rights.

And he said he was a victim of selective enforcement, a violation of the 14th Amendment's guarantee of equal protection under the law.

In his order, Palk said the sign code imposes varying restrictions — such as number of signs allowed and the size of signs — based on the signs' content, in violation of the First Amendment.

For example, a sign advertising a house for sale can be no larger than 12 square feet. A sign advertising a business for sale can be up to 64 square feet.

For restrictions to survive, the judge wrote, government must show they “further a compelling interest and are narrowly tailored.”

The city's assertion that the sign code's purpose is to increase safety, lessen traffic congestion, prop up property values, keep neighborhoods tidy, and encourage appropriate land use fails to meet that test, Palk said.

As for retaliation, Palk wrote that any ordinary person would be discouraged from making their views known by the prospect of “criminal prosecution and/or a daily fine of $400.”

He said evidence showed the citations “were substantially motivated as a response to the messages” on Knutson's signs.

And Pal kw rote that the “content- based scheme of speech regulation” in the sign code violated Knutson's 14th Amendment rights.

An attorney for the city, Rick Smith, said Tuesday the city had no immediate comment on Palk's order.