I am a strong supporter of free speech and one hundred percent agansit the US invading Iraq, but I have to disagree with the premise of this article. First, it doesn't say why Caltrans has made the decision not to allow signs on the freeway. Ever since 9/11/01 Caltrans has been acused of selectively inforcing a law which says that, for safty reasons, no signs will be hung on overpasses. Specifically, in Scotts Valley, as has been well documented in Santa Cruz County, an anti-war sign was removed while an American flag was left up. This is deplorable in my opinion. Finally, and recently, a judge told Caltrans that the law had to be enforced fairly. First Caltrans said they would allow all signs, thus not enforcing the law at all. They then, went back on that to say they would follow the law and remove all signs, regardless of content. Now, yes, I would like to see all signs allowed, but for safty reasons (the drivers reading many signs while driving by) available space reasons (who is going to take down old signs? when? what happens when there is no more room for old signs? when it is half fallen down?) this is simply not practicle. I'm not going to support the Caltrans here, as they resisted change for a long time, and have not acted as they should, but I don't see how they have any other practical alternative.

Now, I'm not saying there should be no signs on the freeway. If you want to have a sign read there, if you want stand up for your rights to have your voice heard, then I say go to the overpass with a friend, or more if possible, and hold the sign yourselfs. Stand up to the Caltrans or the police if they show up. Let them fine you or arrest you and have your day in court to try to change the law rather than just hanging anonymous signs which will be removed. If you get arrested you can probably make the paper in the area, thus getting you sign read both by the people on the road and by the readership of the Metro, Goodtimes and the Sentinel.