People protest last year on a pedestrian bridge over I-90 in Campbell. Credit: Photo courtesy of Thomas More Law Center

By of the

While technology continues to incubate new issues related to the First Amendment, some very traditional means of protest have landed a small Wisconsin town in a federal court civil rights case.

Two La Crosse men have sued the Town of Campbell over its 2013 ordinance banning signs and other displays from a pedestrian bridge over Interstate 90, and from an area 100 feet around the bridge.

The plaintiffs contend that the bridge is like a sidewalk, a traditional public forum, and that town officials tried to ban signs only after tea party activists hung banners urging passing motorists to impeach President Barack Obama.

According to their lawsuit, filed late last month in federal court in Madison, Greg Luce and Nicholas Newman had been demonstrating along the pedestrian bridge in the La Crosse County town from August to October without incident, or any traffic accidents attributable to their display of messages.

In early October, the town passed an ordinance banning signs, flags, banners and such from the bridge, citing safety concerns. The plaintiffs contend the ban was in response to local news media coverage of the impeachment message.

So on Oct. 24, Luce and fellow demonstrators came to the bridge wearing T-shirts that spelled out IMPEACH on one side, and OBAMA on the other. They were told by Campbell police to leave the overpass, and they did.

On Oct. 27, Newman stood on the overpass with an American flag "to express his pride for his country and the ideals on which it was founded" when he was ticketed for violating the new ordinance, the suit states.

Four more protesters were ticketed during a December demonstration, the La Crosse Tribune reported, some for holding flags and one for holding a cross.

Luce and Newman later wrote to town officials explaining their position that the ordinance was unlawful but got no response, their suit contends. Now, they seek an injunction blocking enforcement of the ordinance.

Brent Smith, a La Crosse attorney who represents the town, said Tuesday that while he knew of no accidents related to message on the bridge, the point of the ban was to prevent accidents.

He also insisted the ordinance was not aimed at any particular message.

"I can say in the lead-up to the passage, and from knowing the town board members, that there was nothing to indicate it has anything to do with the message," Smith said. "It's content neutral."

Smith said a similar restriction was adopted in Madison several years ago that was subjected to a similar challenge but upheld by a federal appellate court.

Luce and Newman are represented by the Michigan-based Thomas More Law Center, which, according to a news release, "defends and promotes America's Judeo-Christian heritage and moral values."

Their local attorney, Bernardo Cueto, said about 25,000 drivers a day go under the pedestrian bridge, and there's no other venue in the La Crosse area that offers the same exposure for people exercising the First Amendment expressions.