Legal Question in Constitutional Law in California

Re: Signs on public property; equal protection

My guess is that the "proposed library project" involves the city's *public* library and that it was proposed by the city itself. It is only natural that a city government would advocate its own plans on its own land. Opponents of those plans have plenty of ways to make their opposition known, and the city does not have to dedicate its own land to their use.

Governments may not discriminate against speech on the basis of viewpoint, but that does not seem to be what's happening here. If the city is allowing supporters of the project to do something it forbids opponents to do, then it is acting unconstitutionally. But the city does not have to subsidize the political speech of its opponents unless it is also subsidizing comparable speech by its supporters. The city's *own* speech is a different matter. The fact that it says something on its own land does not mean it has to let others use its land to make an opposing statement.