Anyone who's driven along Auburn Avenue on a weekday has probably seen them: a veritable sea of large signs on the sidewalk and propped up against fences near the Margaret Sanger Planned Parenthood Center that contain anti-abortion slogans and, in some cases, graphic photographs of bloody, mangled fetuses.

On most days beginning shortly after 8 a.m., one or two men arrive and park their cars at on-street spots, then begin meticulously erecting the placards up and down the street. By the time they´re done, dozens of boldly-lettered signs line both sides of Auburn Avenue for the length of a city block.

The signs typically remain in place until about 2 p.m., when they´re packed up and taken away until the process begins anew the next morning. The scene has repeated itself for more than a decade.

That tradition soon might change.

At the urging of the Mount Auburn Community Council and the Mount Auburn Chamber of Commerce, Cincinnati officials are considering new regulations that could severely limit the scope of protests or demonstrations held in the public right-of-way, such as streets and sidewalks. The city´s lawyers recently advised Cincinnati City Council that it could if it chooses legally restrict the size of signs as well as the number of signs based on how many people participate in the demonstration.

Under the proposal, city council may limit the number of signs to two per individual, plus two more signs that are temporarily leaned against or attached to structures such as fences. If approved, the regulations mean one person could have a maximum of four signs. No signs would be bigger than 3-by-4 feet.

Council´s Law Committee is reviewing the proposal.

Such restrictions are allowed because the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled in various cases that local governments can´t limit free speech rights based on the content of the message being conveyed but may limit speech based on time, place and manner to ensure public safety and welfare.

In other words, any regulations must apply equally to all demonstrations held in the public right-of-way whether it´s protesting abortion or the Iraq War, promoting the eating of broccoli or discussing a conspiracy involving flying saucers.

City Councilwoman Roxanne Qualls, who asked the Law Department for the report, says the proposal is a reasonable attempt to regulate how public areas are used and shouldn´t be construed merely as an attack on abortion protesters.

"I view myself, in this instance, as passing along a request made by citizens," says Qualls, a Charterite. "The city has a right to regulate signage in the public right-of-way. It´s a difficult task. We´re trying to balance a lot of competing concerns."

One of the people making the request is Joanne Hall, who owns an apartment building next to Planned Parenthood and says certain protesters have harassed her tenants if they refuse to accept pamphlets they´re handing out. Also, some protesters have trespassed on her property and blocked access to private sidewalks.

As a result, some tenants have moved away when their leases expire and several prospective tenants have left when they see the demonstration, Hall says.

"Literally, it´s putting me out of business," says Hall, who´s owned the building for eight years. "Why should an entire neighborhood suffer for one or two people? It should be a fair and balanced approach."

City Councilwoman Leslie Ghiz, a Republican, is skeptical about the sign proposal. She believes the new rules are aimed solely at the anti-abortion display, which could make the city vulnerable to a lawsuit.

"The new rules don´t specify content, but that´s the intent," says Ghiz, who´s also a lawyer. "As far as I know, there´s been no other complaint given to council besides the one in Mount Auburn."

Such a scenario isn´t without precedent. In the early 1990s, council acted to abolish all displays on Fountain Square as a way to prevent the Ku Klux Klan from erecting a cross there.

Later, a councilman sought an exemption for a library book sale, which prompted a lawsuit from the Klan. After a lengthy and expensive case, a federal judge ruled in 1994 that the city can´t pick and choose who it permitted access to the square.

Ghiz, who is pregnant, drives by the abortion protest a few times a month while going to her obstetrician. Although opposed to abortion, she doesn´t necessarily condone all the signs but that´s irrelevant, she says.

"Whether I think it´s OK or not, I don´t think we should start dabbling in this," Ghiz says. "We´re opening a Pandora´s Box."

Hall, who is Catholic, says the protest is disruptive and warrants some guidelines.

"Allowing an unlimited number of signs creates sheer chaos for the people around here," Hall says. "If this demonstration were in front of City Hall every day, something would´ve been done a long time ago." ©