013. The case Austin, Texas v. Reagan National Advertising is about…

DoctorTigerMaster742 013. The case Austin, Texas v. Reagan National Advertising is about…013. The case Austin, Texas v. Reagan National Advertising is about understanding a Bill of Rights amendment. This case started when Austin tried to limit billboards and other outdoor advertising to keep the city’s look. So that this could happen, the city passed a law that said companies couldn’t put up ads within 500 feet of any residential area. Reagan National Advertising (RNA) filed a lawsuit against Austin, saying that the ordinance violated their right to free speech under the First Amendment. In 1991, the Supreme Court finally looked at the case. They sided with RNA and said that Austin’s law was against the Constitution.The story of this case goes back to 1982 when the City of Austin passed a law that said outdoor advertising, like billboards, couldn’t be put up within 500 feet of any home. Because of this, several companies, including Reagan National Advertising (RNA), were prohibited from advertising in certain parts of the city. RNA sued Austin because they said that the ordinance violated their right to free speech under the First Amendment. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals heard the case first. They sided with Austin and said that the ordinance did not go against the First Amendment. Then, RNA took the case to the Supreme Court, which agreed in 1991 to hear it.Justice Stevens wrote the majority opinion in the Supreme Court case, which said that Austin’s ordinance was against the law. The majority opinion noted that the regulation was too broad, limited free speech, and did not serve a substantial government interest. The majority also said that the ordinance didn’t do an excellent job of achieving a legitimate state goal, so it went against the First Amendment.Justice Blackmun wrote the dissenting opinion, which said that Austin’s ordinance was constitutional because it did serve a valid government purpose. The people who disagreed with the majority said that the law was necessary to keep the city looking nice and that it was narrowly written to do this.When you look at the legal reasoning behind the Supreme Court’s decision, it is clear that the majority opinion gave a broad and expansive reading of the First Amendment. The majority said the ordinance did not follow the First Amendment because it was too wide and limited free speech. On the other hand, those who disagreed argued for a narrower view of the Amendment. They said that the ordinance was needed to serve a legitimate government interest.Most of the ways the news has talked about the decision are similar. Most news sources have written about the decision clearly and accurately summed up the arguments of both the majority and the minority. Some news outlets have blown up the case details and said that the decision significantly changed how the First Amendment should be interpreted. But, for the most part, the news has told the truth about the decision and what it means.In the end, Austin, Texas v. Reagan National Advertising is a case that explains what a Bill of Rights amendment means. The majority of the Supreme Court said that Austin’s law was too broad and limited free speech, so it went against the First Amendment. The people who disagreed argued for a more limited view of the Amendment. They said that the ordinance was needed to serve a legitimate government interest. Most of what the media has said about the decision has been confirmed, but some outlets have blown up the details of the case. need in-text citations and a Works Cited list.  Arts & HumanitiesEnglish