Contact: Nisha Mohammed, The Rutherford Institute, 434-978-3888 ext. 604, 434-466-6168 cell, nisha@rutherford.org  

CHARLOTTESVILLE, Va., Aug. 18 /Standard Newswire/ -- Declaring Congressman Tom Perriello's (D-VA) ban on signs at town hall meetings "an act of outright censorship that raises grave constitutional concerns," The Rutherford Institute is urging the congressman to immediately rescind the prohibition or face possible legal action.

The Rutherford Institute's letter regarding Congressman Perriello's sign ban at town hall meetings is available at www.rutherford.org.

"Historically, town hall meetings have been public forums wherein constituents can hear and address their representatives. In such an environment, the public's right to freely express themselves should be at its zenith, which is something our Constitution protects," said John W. Whitehead, president of The Rutherford Institute. "This sign ban is an act of censorship that cannot be reasoned away on the pretext that it is intended to encourage freedom of speech and to discourage partisan politics. While such a commitment to civil discourse on Congressman Perriello's part is to be commended, it cannot come at the expense of his constituents' First Amendment rights to freedom of expression."

In his capacity as a public official, Congressman Tom Perriello has held and continues to hold town hall meetings funded by public taxpayer funds in public buildings situated on public property, such as Scottsville Elementary School and the Campbell County Board of Supervisors meeting room.

In July 2010, Perriello announced that a town hall meeting series would be held between August 4 and September 13 at various public buildings in Virginia's 5th Congressional District. However, purportedly in an effort "to ensure a pleasant atmosphere" and allow constituents "to interact with their congressman without partisan politics getting in the way," Perriello adopted a prohibition on all signs in the meeting room. Yet as Whitehead points out in a letter to Perriello, these are not private events. "Rather, they are government-sponsored forums whose very purpose is to engender communication with one's constituents on matters of public concern."

Furthermore, the First Amendment forbids government officials from imposing absolute prohibitions on a particular kind of expression in public forums of this kind. And finally, the U.S. Supreme Court declared a similarly overbroad ban on signs within a public forum to be unconstitutional in 1983. Thus, Whitehead asserts, far from enhancing expression, Perriello's ban on signs violates his constituents' First Amendment right to free speech and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. Whitehead closes his letter to Perriello by reminding the congressman that "[a]s a representative of the people of the 5th district of Virginia, it is your sworn duty to see that your constituents' constitutional rights are protected."