NO Flyers Ads Menus

Gowanus Lounge has a post up about the annoying fliers that are distributed in Kohl's bags and have given rise to the plague of "NO flyers ads menus" signs that are zip-tied to brownstone ironwork around the neighborhood. Personally, I don't know which I dislike more, cleaning up the commercial detritus that I routinely find on our doorstep, or seeing the laminated cards affixed to gates. While the flyers are annoying -- and I sympathize with the Red & Black cause -- I find the NO signs to be off-putting and vaguely utopian for people who live in a city like New York and endure the barrage of various media and other nuisances that are part of the lifestyle here.

People might be surprised to know that, as a general rule, there is a First Amendment right to knock on neighbors' doors or distribute flyers, at least insofar as the purpose of the solicitation is not commercial. See, e.g., Watchtower Bible & Tract Soc. of N.Y., Inc. v. Village of Stratton, 536 U.S. 150 (2002). The First Amendment does not protect commercial speech as strongly. And so, in Watchtower, the Court suggested that barring the distribution of only commercial materials (as opposed to the religious and political materials that the town also banned) might be permissible; but I do wonder whether in a neighborhood like Park Slope, there's some civic value inherent to the distribution of local menus and ads (who knows when you might need a good local locksmith?), if not the ads for nationally-advertised chains like Kohl's. (Gowanus Lounge makes the sound point that the closest Kohl's is some distance from the Slope.) Then again, I ordered from a Mexican restaurant who shall remain nameless after receiving one of its menus. Maybe the ban should be enforced.

Hello World

When you become an attorney, you sign on for a lifetime of responding to your family's and friends' "Is that legal?" questions. It may be a source of frustration for some attorneys, who either don't like to admit that they don't know an answer or just don't like to be put on the spot, but I actually don't mind it at all. The profession teaches its practitioners to see the world in terms of competing legal interests, and since I'm already thinking that way most of the time (though I usually try to hide it, because it doesn't make for very genial conversation), to be asked for my opinion on a question gives me a chance to let my thoughts go out loud.

Of course, my answer is almost always the same: "It Depends." This may not satisfy the person who has asked the question, but once we go at it from a few different angles, and come up with a bunch of different permutations that could lead to different results, the person has learned that when he asks a legal question--at least at first blush--there may not be a decisive answer. If he's never dealt with a lawyer before, it can be frustrating to learn that there might not be a clear-cut response. If he has dealt with attorneys, he might walk away from the conversation shaking his head and saying "They're all the same."

I'm a Big Firm attorney -- a litigator -- which means that most of my cases involve millions of dollars and there are often corporate interests behind one or both of the parties. But just because I'm focused on these cases for 40 hours a week (or 50. or 60. or, God forbid, 70), that doesn't mean I turn off my perspective when I come home. Living in Park Slope gives a lawyer all kinds of fat to chew on. It's an activist, political community that's teeming with interaction and opportunity to think about legal problems. So this blog is meant to be an outlet for me to think about some of those issues. Feel free to email me (parkslopelaw-at-gmail.com) and ask me "Is this legal?" I can tell you in advance, the answer will probably be "It Depends."