Opinion ID: 835641
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Petitioner's Prior Restraint Argument

Text: Petitioner argues that, because the OMIA requires a person to obtain a permit before an outdoor advertising sign lawfully may be erected, it is an unconstitutional prior restraint. Petitioner claims that Article I, section 8, mandates that speech can be displayed without a permit, and that, under that provision, the state may take action only after the speech is displayed. The state first responds that petitioner cannot sustain a prior restraint claim because no prior restraint occurred in these cases: Petitioner did display his speech without a permit, and the state took action only after petitioner did so. The state argues that, as in Outdoor Media I, petitioner never applied for or obtained permits for the erection or maintenance of its signs and therefore was not subject to any prior restraint. In that case, this court rejected petitioner's prior restraint claim, holding that, respecting prior restraint, none occurred under the facts of this case. 331 Or. at 654 n. 11, 20 P.3d 180. The state argues that this case is in the same procedural posture and that, as in Outdoor Media I, we should decline to consider petitioner's argument that the permit requirement is an unconstitutional prior restraint. The state is mistaken. The prior restraint issue in Outdoor Media I involved petitioner's claim for damages under 42 USC section 1983, and this court concluded that, because petitioner had erected and maintained its signs without permits notwithstanding the OMIA's permit and fee requirements, he could not prove that those requirements had caused his alleged damage. Id. at 654-55, 20 P.3d 180. Here, in contrast, petitioner does not seek monetary damages but instead argues that the permit and fee requirements that are the basis for the orders requiring removal of its signs are themselves unconstitutional prior restraints. The parties agree that those requirements, on their face, apply to petitioner, so the only question is whether they are constitutionally permissible. In those circumstances, we perceive no reason to require petitioner to seek permits for its signs before raising its constitutional challenges. We turn to the merits of petitioner's prior restraint argument. As noted, petitioner argues that the requirement that it pay a fee and obtain a permit before erecting an outdoor advertising sign constitutes a prior restraint that is barred by Article I, section 8. The state counters that the permit and fee requirements are not impermissible prior restraints because they are content neutral and have adequate standards to guide official discretion in the issuance of permits. The gravamen of a prohibited prior restraint, according to the state, is the prospect of government censorship of speech; the OMIA's content-neutral permit and fee requirements do not raise that prospect and thus are not unconstitutional prior restraints. In City of Portland v. Welch, 229 Or. 308, 367 P.2d 403 (1961), this court considered a city ordinance that required persons wishing to exhibit movies to the public to obtain a license from a government censor. It held the ordinance unconstitutional under Article I, section 8, because it was a prior restraint, stating that [c]ensorship by licensing is, of course, a prior restraint, 229 Or. at 320, 364 P.2d 1009, and the draftsmen of Oregon's basic charter wanted no censorship in Oregon. Id. Similarly, this court more recently held that a provision of the Oregon Uniform Trade Secrets Act was an unconstitutional prior restraint because it allowed a court to order a person not to disclose an alleged trade secret without prior court approval. State ex rel Sports Management News v. Nachtigal, 324 Or. 80, 88, 921 P.2d 1304 (1996) (quoting ORS 646.469). This court described that statute as authorizing a classic prior restraint, because it permitted a judge to require a third-party publisher who had not committed a crime in obtaining its information to submit its speech for court approval before publication. Id. Welch and Sports Management News illustrate the purpose of the prohibition on prior restraints: to bar the state from deciding in advance what expression it will permit. See Welch, 229 Or. at 319-20, 367 P.2d 403 (describing reasons for ban on prior restraint). The OMIA's permit and fee scheme, with the exception of the statutory off-premises/on-premises distinction that we discuss below, does not allow the state to ban certain expression in advance. The owner of a sign that existed on June 12, 1975, and that was located in a commercial or industrial zone on that date, is entitled to the issuance of a permit, ORS 377.712(1), and the messages on permitted signs may be changed without state approval. ORS 377.725(8). The license requirement in Welch and the judicial prior approval of speech at issue in Sports Management News gave the government the authority to decide, in advance, what movie scenes or magazine content would be permitted. From all that appears in this record, the OMIA's permit and fee requirements are focused on covering the cost of a content-neutral permit scheme and are implemented in a content-neutral and nonarbitrary manner. For that reason, the permit and fee requirements pose no danger of official censorship and, therefore, do not constitute impermissible prior restraints on expression in violation of Article I, section 8.