Are there any federal laws in the United States regulating non-digital billboards? Billboards can be quite a distraction to drivers, and some cities have banned digital billboards. However, I haven't been able to find any information on non-digital billboards, which don't seem to be significantly less distracting in many cases. Are there any federal laws regulating non-digital billboards to lessen distractions for drivers? I ask for federal laws because of applications to interstate highways. I don't know if any regulations would be applied by states or by the federal government, since billboards by the boundary of a state can distract drivers on both sides of the state line.
For interstate and federal highways at least, there are regulations. For example, the billboards in Times Square are illegal. But it turns out this billboard, and others plastering Times Square, may actually be illegal. Under a federal highway beautification law, the billboards are too big – the law states that [billboards] should not be larger than 1200 square feet. Last week, the city’s transportation commissioner said the billboards may have to be taken down, or New York could risk losing ten percent of its federal highway funds. The Highway Beautification Act and various amendments can be referenced here.
In April 2017, a US District court on Colorado ruled that a law prohibiting women from exposing their breasts in public was an unconstitutional discrimination against women. The law was ordinance 134 passed by Fort Collins, Colorado in May 2016. The group opposing it was led by the activist organization "Free the Nipple." This ruling is not binding in other states, however. See this Snopes report for more details. The case is being appealed to the Tenth Circuit. A similar ordinance has been taken to state court in New Hampshire on similar grounds as described in this AP story and this US News story A similar claim in Illinois in 2017 resulted in a law against 'public indecency" being upheld (in Tagami v. City of Chicago) at the Federal Appeals Court level, according to this Reason story A similar law in Ocean City, Maryland, was challenged in federal court in the summer oif 2018 according to this news story. in 1991 in United States v. Biocic the US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit upheld a similar law against a similar challenge. This Munknee article lists states where a woman going topless is legal and illegal. According to a Time Article (which gives a similar list): The vast majority of states actually have laws on the books making clear that women can’t be arrested under state law solely for being topless in settings where it’s OK for men. But many local ordinances ban the practice anyway. In short, it is not yet fully settled if there is a US constitutional right for a woman to go topless, and state and local laws vary widely. Local laws do not always conform to the laws of the state, but would probably require a court challenge to enforce the state law. Laws in other countries will vary, but many places ban such exposure.
S88 Closing roads and public places: ...totally or partially prohibit or restrict public access, with or without vehicles, to any road or public place... S91(1)(a) Power to give directions: direct any person to stop any activity that may cause or substantially contribute to an emergency That is what "this Act otherwise provides"; S6 that you cited only works "unless": Unless this Act otherwise provides, this Act does not limit, is not in substitution for, and does not affect the functions, duties, or powers of any person under the provisions of any enactment or any rule of law. Also, from another angle, "functions, duties, or powers" are not the same thing as "rights": the Act does not limit the former (unless provides otherwise), but nowhere does it say it does not limit the latter.
Short answer: tinted windows are banned in most of Mexico, and rolling down the windows (at least the front windows) should keep you out of trouble in &gt;99% of cases. Long answer: First, the law (mirror) seems to say that tinted windows are forbidden in most (all?) Mexico: [In all] Mexico, tinted windows are prohibited. They are banned. Except some tinted windows made by manufacturers. http://forums.bajanomad.com/viewthread.php?tid=46637: This article says the Mexican federal highway police will now be confiscating cars with tinted windows so dark that they cannot see inside, until the owners remove the polarizing paper. This is in accordance with Article 13 of the federal tranportation rules. It does not say what will happen with cars with factory tinting, since that cannot be removed. Second, on the enforcement of this law, it is sometimes enforced: TIJUANA – Hundreds of drivers have been stopped in Tijuana and ordered to remove after-market tint from the windows of their vehicles this week after a new law intended to help reduce crime went into effect. More sources. The enforcement seems very random. I did witness it myself that it is still currently enforced, at least in Tijuana. Regarding the effectiveness of rolling down one's windows to avoid triggering the police, http://www.city-data.com/forum/san-diego/321508-warning-message-those-who-driving-their.html says: I talked with the Police at the Ocho Street station last week. When driving in Tijuana, rolling down your front windows is OK for a tourist. Do it as you approach the border and while in Tijuana. It is only a ban in Tijuana, Rosarito and south is OK. https://www.tripadvisor.ca/ShowTopic-g150774-i256-k1967450-Dark_window_tint_banned_in_Tijuana-Rosarito_Baja_California.html: I went to the 8th street Police station (Tijuana) to find out what was up. I was told that the ban applies to only the front side windows. Rear side and back are OK (as in California). NO tint (other than factory) is permitted, even my light tint. They told me that, as a tourist, when in Tijuana just keep the front windows down, no problem. It's what I do, and -- no problem. https://www.reddit.com/r/tijuana/comments/92grg1/tijuana_window_tint_info/ When I get lit up, I immediately roll down all four windows in the car and when I pull over, I turn on the interior lights for them if it's at night. In the very unlikely event one gets pulled over despite having rolled down one's windows, one can use this trick: And while I have not had to do this, several of my Amigos have had great luck with not speaking Spanish to the cop (whether or not they know Spanish) and then saying they don't understand the cop's accent or why they were pulled over - being polite the entire time - and say they are going to call 078 to get help translating (078 is the Baja California tourist help line - it is staffed by English speaking operators). Invariably, the cops all the sudden get a more important call and have to leave immediately and let you off with a verbal warning. https://www.bajanorte.com/en/assistance-078/ Note that, from the same source: if you have Cali plates, you are at a higher likelihood for being pulled over, regardless of tint or actions.
The Coroners and Justice Act of April 2009 (c. 2) created a new offence in England and Wales and Northern Ireland of possession of a prohibited image of a child. This act makes cartoon pornography depicting minors illegal in the UK. This Act did not replace the 1978 act, extended in 1994, since that covered &quot;pseudo-photographs&quot;—images that appear to be photographs. In 2008 it was further extended to cover tracings, and other works derived from photographs or pseudo-photographs. A prohibited cartoon image is one which involves a minor in situations which are pornographic and &quot;grossly offensive, disgusting or otherwise of an obscene character.&quot; Prior to this, although not explicitly in the statutes, the law was interpreted to apply to cartoon images, though only where the images are realistic and indistinguishable from photographs. The new law however covered images whether or not they are realistic. Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_status_of_cartoon_pornography_depicting_minors The Wikipedia article includes a further list of footnotes and sources for this topic. The only reason I wrote this answer because I remembered reading about this in the newspaper around 4 years ago when the Netherlands outlawed such images and they referred to the UK having 'recently' banned such things as well rather than just the older acts mentioned by Flup.
Yes The US constitution is in the public domain. Anyone may publish a version of it, including an altered version. No US law forbidding publication of an altered version would itself be constitutional -- the First Amendment would prevent such a law. However, if an altered version were sold under such conditions that a customer might reasonably believe it to be an unaltered version, that might be false advertising, or perhaps fraud, because the seller would be deceiving the customer as to what the product is.
What legal problems might you run into? Well, you'd be violating 47 USC 301, which requires a license for anyone broadcasting in the United States. Penalties for that are given in 47 USC 501 (a fine of up to $10,000 and up to a year in prison), 47 USC 502 (an additional fine of $500 per day of violation), 47 USC 501(b)(2)(D) (forfeiture of up to $10,000 per day, with a maximum of $75,000), and 47 USC 510 (forfeiture of your equipment). "Just outside the FM band" on the low end (below 88 MHz) is television channel 6, while on the high end (above 108 MHz) are frequencies used for airplane navigation. If your transmission interferes with a licensed user of channel 6, you're also in violation of 47 USC 333, which carries much the same penalties as violating section 301, but without the forfeiture of equipment. If your transmission interferes with air navigation, you're in violation of 49 USC 46308, which carries a penalty of up to five years in prison and a fine of up to $5,000. Honestly, you'd be better off broadcasting inside the FM band: there, you can broadcast without a license under 47 CFR 15, which limits you to a broadcast power of 250 microvolts per meter at 3 meters (basically, you can broadcast to anyone in your house or maybe the next house over).
No, it is generally not legal. In most (maybe all) states, this would be vandalism. For example, see California Penal Code Section 594(1)(a): Every person who maliciously commits any of the following acts with respect to any real or personal property not his or her own, in cases other than those specified by state law, is guilty of vandalism: (1) Defaces with graffiti or other inscribed material. (2) Damages. (3) Destroys. For another example, see Kansas Statutes 21-5813. In your hypothetical, the pedestrian absolutely hit the vehicle, not the other way around, so the "fine line" you mention doesn't effect this conclusion. The practicality of proving the case against the pedestrian is a separate matter but the law favours neither the pedestrian nor the driver. The standard is the same no matter who the charges are filed against: proof beyond a reasonable doubt.