<http://schema.org/articleBody>
"<p>The First Amendment doesn\u2019t specifically mention streetlight poles, but they are involved in a free speech class action complaint filed in federal court in Chicago.<br>\n<br>\nRCP Publications filed the complaint in December against the city, arguing the city violates the First Amendment with its policy on which messages may be posted on public property. The Chicago-based nonprofit corporation publishes Revolution Newspaper as well as books focusing on political, economic and social issues. It regularly distributes paper documents directing people to their website.<br>\n<br>\nThe lawsuit arose from advertising for the March online premiere of \u201CRevolution and Religion: The Fight for Emancipation and the Role of Religion,\u201D which RCP streamed free at revcom.us. An unaffiliated group, BA Everywhere, hosted an in-person premiere, using posters that mentioned both the Web stream and live event to promote the film.<br>\n<br>\nOne such poster, attached to a streetlight pole at 5701 S. Kimbark Ave., Chicago, prompted the city of Chicago to issue RCP a citation for violating a city statute that stipulates \u201CNo person shall distribute or cause others to distribute .. commercial advertising material by means of posting, sticking, stamping, tacking, painting or otherwise fixing any sign .. calculated to attract the attention of the public, to or upon any .. lamppost.\u201D<br>\n<br>\nThough the premiere was in March, the city issued its ordinance violation notice July 14. RCP appeared at a Nov. 16 hearing to contest the ticket, but an administrative law judge found RCP liable and levied a $350 fine, plus $40 in court costs.<br>\n<br>\nIn its lawsuit, RCP argued the city statute is unconstitutional because it regulates speech by topic, specifically that it \u201Crestricts signs communicating a message deemed \u2018commercial\u2019 but does not restrict signs communicating any other type of message (including political, artistic, social, directional or charitable). There is no compelling government interest served by restricting signs communicating \u2018commercial\u2019 messages while allowing signs communicating all other messages.\u201D<br>\n<br>\nThe film advertised on the poster in question \u201Cfeatured a discussion between two prominent intellectuals, Cornel West and Bob Avakian,\u201D according to the complaint. And although the online streaming was available at no charge through a nonprofit agency, the city\u2019s decision to issue the violation brands RCP\u2019s involvement as commercial.<br>\n<br>\nThe class would include potentially dozens of people who, during the class period \u2014 which the complaint did not yet define \u2014 have been ticketed or fined under the applicable city code. The complaint\u2019s central question is whether the city is allowed to restrict only commercial messages: \u201CThis question predominates over any questions affecting only individual Class members.\u201D<br>\n<br>\nIn addition to class certification and a jury trial, RCP is seeking monetary damages and compensation for legal fees. It wants the court to declare the city statute unconstitutional and to enter preliminary and permanent injunctions barring its enforcement.<br>\n<br>\nRCP\u2019s attorneys are Mark G. Weinberg and Adele D. Nicholas, of Chicago.</p>"^^<http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#string>
<http://cookcountyrecord.com/stories/510656474-publisher-says-city-rules-barring-posters-on-lamp-posts-is-unconstitutional>