This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Free speech in America can include a lot of different methods of expression: A sign, a statement, a written document, an image painted on the side of a building, even an association, and much more.
And now "spooky" Christmas decorations.
That's the argument from the Institute for Justice which is blasting the city of Germantown, Tennessee, for a decision by its officials to brazenly violate free speech by citing Alexis Luttrell, a resident, for violating the city's sign code.
"Her supposed crime: Incorporating Halloween decorations like skeletons into her Christmas yard display. You would think that only a grinch would look at Luttrell's decorations and think they deserve a court summons. But IJ cases from over a decade show that officials across the country regularly abuse ordinary Americans by acting like the 'speech police"" the organization said in a report on the fracas.
"The whole idea behind free speech is that you get to choose what you want to put up to celebrate," IJ lawyer Robert Frommer explained. "Officials shouldn't get to block you from expressing yourself just because they dislike your reason for the season."
The report said Luttrell put a skeleton and a skeleton dog in her yard to commemorate Halloween. After that holiday, she used the skeleton and dog as Christmas decorations.
"Germantown officials weren't pleased and issued Luttrell a court summons, stating that her decorations violated city code," the organization reported.
Germantown bans residents from installing holiday decorations more than 45 days before the date of the holiday and requires residents to remove seasonal decorations within 30 days after the holiday, the report said.
Luttrell is due in court Feb. 13.
However, the institute pointed out, "A core principle of the First Amendment is that the government generally can't discriminate against speech based on what it says or who put it up. And here, that includes the decorations that someone puts up to celebrate."
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled, back in 2015, that "those kind of content-based regulations must serve the most compelling of government interests."
