Court Upholds Neighbors' Signage as Free Speech

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court issued a curious opinion recently in a First Amendment case involving a feud between neighbors over a boundary, Oberholzer v. Galapo. Dr. Galapo confronted Mr. Oberholzer about a resurveyed property line, and Mrs. Oberholzer responded by directing a verbal epithet at Dr. Galapo, consisting of the latter’s faith, Jewish, preceded by a profane adjective. The Galapos responded by posting, over a period of time, dozens of anti-bigotry signs, on their own property, directed at the Oberholzer property and in view of other neighbors. In response, the Oberholzers filed a civil complaint against the Galapos, which included causes of action for private nuisance, intrusion upon seclusion, defamation, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. They also sought an injunction against the Galapos, to prevent the latter from communicating “incendiary racial and ethnic slander.”

Interestingly, the trial court permitted the signs, but required that they be positioned so that they would not be visible to the Oberholzers.

The Supreme Court concluded that the Galapos' signposting “constituted an act of pure speech,” and not picketing, and that the messages relayed by the Galapos' signs were matters of public concern. Although the Court recognized that people are entitled to “the highest degree of privacy known to our society" when inside their homes, it characterized the Galapos’ signage as “pure residential speech,” and ordered the injunction entered by the trial court dissolved.