What a funny ad...it almost sounds like the new hire has to bring his/her own costume.  No biggie since we all have Uncle Sam/Lady Liberty costumes in our closets, right?

It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine

Please tell me that, if you were to have either one in your closet, it would be an Uncle Sam costume.  I don't know why for sure, but thinking about you all gussied up in a Lady Liberty gown dredges up memories of Gene Hackman at the end of "The Birdcage".

Hey now...be nice.  Sometimes a feller just wants to be pretty, eh?

It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine

But what is Chicken Man vending here?  He seems to be serving the sole purpose of silently walking back and forth in front of the restaurant, waving at people driving by.  He's not selling anything; he's sort of the equivalent of having a sign that says "Eat at Joe's" outside the restaurant.

Street vendors are controlled for various reasons: unsanitary conditions, congestion from having too many customers line up on the sidewalks, issues of whether what they're selling are legitimate goods.  None of that here.  It looks like a silly example of a small town government carried away with itself and falling back on an obscure reading of its city code.

While it's true that the courts have generally given more support to political over commercial speech, the facts are that commercial speech has been treated with increasing seriousness by the courts.  And the last link in my write up (about an eerily similar case to this one) came down hard on the right of a business to have mascots walking along the road advertising the store location.

Illegitimi non carborundum.

I'm not really going to defend the street vendor comment. He's more like a street vendor than a political protester but they're both off topic.

he's sort of the equivalent of having a sign that says "Eat at Joe's" outside the restaurant.

That's all I'm saying. And I'm pretty sure municipalities have the right to say how large and where you can place those signs.

It is easy to buy small plaster models of what you think life is like.

"I'm pretty sure municipalities have the right to say how large and where you can place those signs."

I know that in my city, there's an ordinance about street-front signs.  There was one in front of my favorite ice cream parlor (within walking distance of my house) and they made her remove it.  The shop is now out of business.  Whether that had anything to do with it going out of biz, I have no idea.  All I know is that a lot of kids in the neighborhood (including old kids like me) liked to go there.  

So, now thanks to the dumbshit politicians, there's now a vacant building that they'll have to tend for, no tax money coming in, and a lot of unhappy kids.  Way to go.  

there's only one way to find out...

My point is that he isn't really akin to a street vendor at all.  He is engaging in commercial speech (without saying a word).  I agree that towns have the right and power to decide where and what type of sign you can display.  I contend that Chicken Man isn't really a sign; he's some guy in an animal costume hired to stand outside the restaurant.  I think that Buttery and the town of Woodland Park already lost that issue of restricting what sort of sign that could be erected when they offered to allow Chicken Man to strut his stuff 90 days a year.

Illegitimi non carborundum.

So, you're saying you were wrong when you said:

he's sort of the equivalent of having a sign that says "Eat at Joe's" outside the restaurant.

I think that Buttery and the town of Woodland Park already lost that issue of restricting what sort of sign that could be erected when they offered to allow Chicken Man to strut his stuff 90 days a year.

No, that was a good faith effort on their part to reach a compromise between the parties. I don't think their argument ought to be hindered by that. The odd thing is, the longer this goes on, the more it actually does become a free speech issue. Branden gives the chicken a flag and she puts him up in defiance of city officials, then it becomes more of a political issue that she can continue to speak out about.

It is easy to buy small plaster models of what you think life is like.

There is a bit of difference between being "sort of an equivalent of a sign" and being a sign, isn't there?

Illegitimi non carborundum.

I'll give you a +5 disingenuous for your parsing for the rhetoric there ;-)

It is easy to buy small plaster models of what you think life is like.

Disingenuous?  Thou doth wound me to the quick.  Where some see disingenuity, others see nuance.  

Illegitimi non carborundum.

"I'll give you a +5 disingenuous for your parsing for the rhetoric there ;-)"

"Disingenuous?  Thou doth wound me to the quick.  Where some see disingenuity, others see nuance. "

Now, boys, let's learn how to "play nice".  I wish I had a dime for every time I heard that from my mom or one of my grandmoms when I was growing up.  

there's only one way to find out...

In this town at least, the rule is that the municipality has a say in where you place commercial signs, but not on where you carry them (unless you're blocking traffic), or what costume you wear (if not indecent).  This sounds like a decent compromise to me, and allows people to be heard if they're determined enough.  Hiring a chicken man is expensive enough that few businesses will do it.

It's hard to take anything for granted with this Supreme Court, but I can't really see any reason for them to restrict free speech by allowing restrictions on costumes and handheld signs, which are really quite different things from fixed signs.

It would be a fantastic test between their irresistible force to curtail all first amendment rights and their immovable object to allow free reign of commercial interest.

It is easy to buy small plaster models of what you think life is like.

"restrict free speech by allowing restrictions on costumes and handheld signs,"

Interesting idea.  What exactly constitutes a costume and what is clothes?  Back in the 1970's, plenty of men wore "leisure suits" (I'm glad to say that I wasn't one of them).  Was that clothing, or a costume?  At any rate, those were friggin' ugly, AFAIC.  

there's only one way to find out...