04/06/2026
It's been a while since my last update. Finding the right topic that balances my desire to talk about something and what people might want to hear about is a delicate balance.
Today, we will be talking about freedom of speech. To be clear, I am not talking about criminal hate speech or crimes such as terrorizing or criminal threatening.
I am sure that many, if not all of you, have seen signs along the main streets of our city. They range from political affiliation, notices of events, or dislike/support for people or the government. All of these things, and more, are protected speech. Something a little closer to home for me, due to my job, is a famous benchmark case about government or public figures, New York Times Co. v. Sullivan. This case held that public officials cannot win defamation lawsuits over statements about their official conduct unless they prove the statements were made with “actual malice.” This means the speaker must have known the statement was false or acted with reckless disregard for the truth, ensuring strong protection for criticism of government under the First Amendment.
Recently, our city officials, different departments within the city, and the police department have received complaints about certain signs. The city government, especially law enforcement, is not here to silence voices. Our role is to protect people’s right to speak freely. If crimes or city ordinance violations occur (more on that later), they may be enforced, but they need to be enforced based on those specific violations themselves, and not based on feelings stirred up by the message’s content.
Why can’t the city just make an ordinance? The US protects free speech more broadly than any other country. As many know, this protection comes from the First Amendment to the Constitution (added three years after the original Constitution) and is considered a part of the supreme law of the land. That principle was firmly established in Marbury v. Madison, which gave courts the power to strike down laws that violate the Constitution. Because of this, even if the City of Sanford passed an ordinance restricting speech, it would likely be ruled unconstitutional and struck down by the courts. The case Texas v. Johnson (1989) stated, “If there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that the government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable.”
Regarding city ordinance rules around signs, we need to remember that just because they aren’t pretty, doesn’t mean there is a violation. Though when buildings or properties themselves become real eyesores, it’s usually because they’ve fallen into some level of disrepair. These conditions may create safety concerns, dragging down nearby property values, and often leading to neglected maintenance or unpaid taxes. When this happens, issues tend to escalate, with the town issuing notices, fines, and code violations as problems go unaddressed. If the situation still isn’t resolved, the property may be condemned or face liens, eventually leading to tax foreclosure. At that point, the municipality can take ownership and transfer the property to a land bank for redevelopment or demolition. So if you see something that looks dangerous, say something, and if you get a notice from Code Enforcement, please work with them to resolve any issues. But I digress…
Freedom of speech isn’t always about agreeing with what is being said. Most of the time, popular speech rarely needs protection. Protections matter most when the speech is unpopular. You don’t have to like every message you see, but we all share the responsibility to uphold the freedoms that allow those messages to exist in the first place.
At the end of the day, the goal shouldn’t be to silence speech we don’t like, but to understand it and, when necessary, challenge it with better ideas. Real progress doesn’t come from shouting past each other or reducing complex issues to slogans. It comes from conversation, from listening, and from a willingness to engage in good faith.
As a strong-willed community, we need to be intentional about how we engage with one another. That means taking the time to listen before responding, being curious instead of making assumptions, and a willingness to have real conversations with people we may disagree with. It means moving beyond slogans and sound bites, and choosing dialogue that’s focused on understanding, even when it’s uncomfortable.
Stay curious,
Major Mark “Mad Dog” Dyer