It's a somewhat weird and confusing opinion. For example, at the outset, the judge states: "The court here does not rule that the sign code is unlawful or unconstitutional as written. Neither does it rule that Conway could not lawfully regulate the Leavitt’s display, or that the display does not violate the sign code as written. Nor does the court rule that the Leavitt’s display is not commercial speech (as it certainly appears to be), that municipalities may not regulate commercial signage like the display at issue here,4 or that the sign code necessarily implicates any particular level or tier of First Amendment scrutiny. The court rules only that Conway’s application of its sign code, and specifically its enforcement of the sign code to the Leavitt’s sign in the particular manner it employed in this case, does not withstand any level of constitutional scrutiny." The decision also refers to that, "the plaintiff’s dubious testimony, that the display is a “mural” (not a sign) solely intended as an artistic expression, and thus not commercial speech.... Of course, it is a sign under the language of the sign code and under the town’s interpretation of its code, and it quite clearly proposes a commercial transaction (the sale of baked goods) at and inside the structure on which it is erected."
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nhd.60707/gov.uscourts.nhd.60707.60.0.pdf
= new reply since forum marked as read