ATTORNEY WINS LATEST ROUND IN FREE-SPEECH CONFLICT

AUSTIN -- There's no stifling Pat Barber -- at least not on his property.

The Colorado City attorney won a round in his free-speech fight with Texas
officials Thursday when an appeals court ruled that forcing him to remove a
sign from private property along a highway had violated his First Amendment
rights.

"It's a win for me, a win for the people and a win for the Constitution,"
Barber said. "People don't have to put up with this kind of oppression."

Barber had erected an 8-foot-by-16-foot sign along Interstate 20 that read
"Just Say NO to Searches!" A telephone number led callers to a recorded
message advising motorists that they do not have to submit to searches by
officers without warrants. Furthermore, the recording advised travelers
that officers cannot routinely obtain warrants without convincing a judge
there is probable cause of a criminal offense.

Located about 70 miles west of Abilene, the sign drew growls from local law
enforcement and the threat of fines from the Texas Department of
Transportation. The agency said the sign violated the Texas Highway
Beautification Act.

The state won a trial court order to have it removed and Barber was ordered
to pay $1,200 in fines and attorney fees.

Subject to daily $1,000 fines, Barber burned down the sign in 1999, but
vowed to appeal.

"It was a way to emphasize the message of the sign. I thought I would do it
in a dramatic fashion," Barber said.

He said he'll consider putting it back up, but will wait to see if the
state appeals Thursday's ruling. The Texas Attorney General's office said
it was reviewing the case. Barber said he expects the state to appeal.

"I would like to encourage other people to put the message out there," he
said. "I hope that with this case, there is some clarification made on what
restrictions the government can do on private property."

The Highway Beautification Act was created to protect the safety of
motorists and the beauty of the Texas landscape. It limits signs placed
near highways and was meant to restrict unsightly commercial advertising.

Barber's case, however, dealt strictly with protected ideological speech,
said the Third District Court of Appeals in Austin.

While state law would allow him to engage in some types of commercial signs
on his property, it would prohibit purely ideological speech, the appeals
court said.

But Barber has no other adequate way to communicate his message, the court
said. Hand-held signs, letters, fliers, telephone calls, bumper stickers
and other methods would be expensive and less convenient.

The sign, the court said, "is probably the best means, and perhaps the only
means, of reaching his intended audience -- drivers on Interstate 20."

The court was not persuaded by state arguments that the law is
constitutional because it treats commercial and noncommercial speech the same.

"The truth is that there is no commercial equivalent of Barber's purely
ideological speech," the court said.

Barber's case was presented by attorney James C. Harrington, director of
the Texas Civil Rights Project.