Concord, NH – The first amendment dispute over a bright painting that shows that the solar radiated on a mountain range of Chocolate covered with chocolates and strawberries, A blueberry muffin, cinnamon roll and other pastries are scheduled for the trial on Thursday.
Federal judge In New Hampshire will consider whether the city violates the free voice rights of bakery owners who show the mural through their business.
“I think the entire city follows this story,” said Sean Young, the owner of Leavitta Country Bakery in Conway, a community of more than 10,000 people near white animals, nature and customer lovers. Some inhabitants want regulations carried out because they care about reviewing in a tourist city.
Aviation on the bakery, which was founded more than 45 years ago, is the creation of local high school students. When it rose in June 2022. year, the picture attracted a lot of compliments and visitors, including one from the city zoning.
The zoning committee decided that the painting is not as much art as advertising. The Board found that it was a sign and so he couldn’t stay as because of his size. At about 90 square meters (8.6 square meters), four times higher than the local code code that allows.
If the image is not shown what is sold in – baked goods – would not be considered a sign and could remain, board members said.
The city lawyers say that it has shown that “characterized the size of signs serves significant government interest for the preset of the city, promoting the safety and insurance of equal implementation”, according to court documents. ”
Lukewarm said to modify or remove the image. Faced with possible misdemeanor crimes and fines after his appeals were rejected, he sued the city in the Federal Court in 2023. years, saying that his freedom of spoken rights violated.
“Government officials must not speak to people, including entrepreneurs and entrepreneurs, which may not take pictures”, “the Virginia Institute for Justice, which represents young people.” And no one can say straight face to BI Leavatt’s mural was safer, healthier or aesthetically pleasant if flowers are shown instead of pastries. “
Young requires compensation of $ 1. His lawyers say that the definition of the city sign is excessively wide and that the city did not show that something bad will happen if the image remains worse. Not removed.
Part of the Conway’s scientific code states that the city “does not intend to restrict individual free speech, but the city recognizes its right to ask reasonable restrictions on commercial speech.”
The city spent its sign of the sign against other companies. 2006, for example, it was said that the trash can with the ice cream salon, which were shaped like an ice cream cone, were signs. The job asked and got permission from the city to use cans. In the second case, the sporting goods store agreed to remove window screens with photos of mountain bikes and skis, after the city found that they were signs.
Young’s lawsuit paused a few months 2023. years, because residents consider them revising how the city defines the signs, in a way that would allow the image to stay. But that measure was considered too broad and complex, and she failed to pass.
Last year voters passed a new regulation This requires the applicants to meet the criteria for the art of public and commercial property, but did not apply to the Young’s case.
2025-02-13 15:28:00
