Question

Gilleo displayed a large sign on her front lawn that read, "Say No to War in the Persian Gulf, Call Congress Now." The city of Ladue fined her for violating its prohibition on signs on front lawns. Gilleo sued. The city claimed that it was regulating "time, place, and manner." Who should win?

a. Ladue, because Gilleo violated a valid local rule
b. Gilleo, because the prohibition was overly broad.
c. Gilleo, because only Congress can regulate the "time, place, and manner" of political speech
d. Ladue, because Gilleo's conduct is not considered speech

Answer 1

option B

hope helps you

have a nice day

Answer 2

b. Gilleo, because the prohibition was overly broad.

Step-by-step explanation:

When a city government decides to make a ban, that ban must be formulated specifically, explaining well to the population what things are being banned. The prohibition should not be ambiguous, contradictory and broad, because this can cause confusion in citizens and disobedience to prohibition, so the prohibition must be clear, specific and concrete. An example of a vaguely formulated prohibition that led to its disobedience is the city of Ladue's prohibition on signs on the front lawns. The city established a very vague prohibition, which can cause confusion and led to disobedience of Gilleo.

For this reason, we can conclude that who is likely to win the lawsuit between the city x Gilleo is Gilleo, because the prohibition was too broad.