Whether a speaker must first engage in self-censorship to have standing to attack the constitutionality of a prior restraint on its speech

QUESTIONS PRESENTED The Township of Canton’s Sign Ordinance imposes prior restraints on speech in the form of a permit requirement and variance scheme which vests Township officials with open-ended discretion to modify any of its sign restrictions on a case-by-case basis. At the same time, the Ordinance categorizes signs based on their content and then restricts their size, height, and other characteristics depending on the message displayed on the sign. Outdoor One Communications sought to erect a sign in the Township that electronically displays different types of content that changes every eight seconds. As a result, the regulatory treatment of its sign will shift from moment to moment, depending on the message displayed, subjecting it to a variety of content-based restrictions found throughout the Ordinance. The Sixth Circuit held that a) Outdoor lacked standing to challenge the Sign Ordinance as an unconstitutional prior restraint on speech because it could not demonstrate the Ordinance caused it to engage in self-censorship and b) Outdoor lacked standing to challenge the Sign Ordinance’s constitutionality because the court concluded the restrictions applicable to Outdoor’s speech were “more generous” than the restrictions applicable to other categories of content regulated under the scheme. The questions presented are: 1. Whether a speaker must first engage in selfcensorship to have standing to attack the constitutionality of a prior restraint on its speech. ii QUESTIONS PRESENTED — Continued 2. Whether a speaker lacks standing to challenge a facially content-based regulation of its speech if a court concludes the speaker receives “generous” treatment under the scheme.