the maximizing of profit

"The maximizing of profit is not the animating concern of the First Amendment."

-- from U.S. Court of Appeals ruling in Naser Jewelers v. City of Concord, New Hampshire (Jan. 18, 2008).

Note: the Court succinctly summarized what was at issue: "The city of Concord, New Hampshire, enacted an ordinance prohibiting all Electronic Messaging Centers ("EMCs"), which the city found were detrimental to traffic safety and community aesthetics. EMCs are signs which display electronically changeable messages (as opposed to signs with static or manually changeable messages) and so display illuminated text that can change frequently, for instance by scrolling or flashing."

The Court, in upholding the Concord ordinance, noted that: "Billboards and other signs are protected by the First Amendment, but courts have long approved subjecting them to the police powers of local government. ... We give some respect to 'the accumulated, common-sense judgments of local lawmakers and of the many reviewing courts that billboards are real and substantial hazards to traffic safety.' ... It is given that a billboard can constitute a traffic hazard. It follows that EMCs, which provide more visual stimuli than traditional signs, logically will be more distracting and more hazardous. ... The maximizing of profit is not the animating concern of the First Amendment. The fact that restrictions [on electronic messaging signs] prohibit a form of speech attractive to plaintiff does not mean that no reasonable alternative channels of communication are available."