Question

A local businessman is angry that his town refused to grant him a zoning variance to allow him to build a business in a residential area. As a result, he decided to protest by setting up a display of toilets on his properties as an exercise of his constitutional right to freedom of speech. His neighbor, however, has produced a property appraisal that states that the display of toilets has reduced the value of the neighbor's property from $120,000 to $95,000 since most people do not want to live next to a display of toilets. The neighbor sues the businessman for $25,000 in damages or, in the alternative, a court order to remove the offending display. What are the constitutional implications, if any?

Answer 1

answer-

In this case, Neighbor can not sue Local businessman even if he sued him then he can not win the compensation because Neighbor is incidental third party beneficiary means he has not legal rights to sue if his property value is degraded.

in case, Court ordered businessman to remove the offending display of toilet then there will be constitution implication because Businessman is using display of toilet in his property . second he is not violating any his first amendment rights. If court order to remove the display then court would violate his freedom of speech by depriving him from expressing his views which are not harmful as sign of toilet is not causing any violence or slander or Libel or any kind of social evil. Like in the case of City of Ladue v Gilleo where It was decided that Ladue's ban on almost all residential signs violates the first amendment.