Answer. Subject to the caveat that I am not a First Amendment lawyer, here are my thoughts:
The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Section 8 of the Oregon Constitution provides:
No law shall be passed restraining the free expression of opinion, or restricting the right to speak, write, or print freely on any subject whatever; but every person shall be responsible for the abuse of this right. (Emphasis added.)
How these two laws have been legally interpreted, and the scope of each one vis–à–vis the other, is beyond my skill-set.
First, there is only one statute in Oregon’s landlord-tenant law that addresses this issue, and it is broadly crafted to permit expression:
90.755 Right to speak on political issues; limitations; placement of political signs.
(1) No provision in any bylaw, rental agreement, regulation or rule may infringe upon the right of a person who rents a space for a manufactured dwelling or floating home to invite public officers, candidates for public office or officers or representatives of a tenant organization to appear and speak upon matters of public interest in the common areas or recreational areas of the facility at reasonable times and in a reasonable manner in an open public meeting. The landlord of a facility, however, may enforce reasonable rules and regulations relating to the time, place and scheduling of the speakers that will protect the interests of the majority of the homeowners.
(2) The landlord shall allow the tenant to place political signs on or in a manufactured dwelling or floating home owned by the tenant or the space rented by the tenant. The size of the signs and the length of time for which the signs may be displayed are subject to the reasonable rules of the landlord. [Formerly 91.925; 1991 c.844 §18; 1995 c.559 §40; 2009 c.816 §17] (Emphasis added.)
So as to political signs, it appears that pro- and anti-Trump signs are clearly protected. What about pro-life signs, which could be viewed as a political statement? Same question for gay rights. Confederate flags might be regarded as political, but I believe in this day and age of hypersensitivity, it has become viewed less as emblematic of southern heritage, and more as having racial undertones. In short, community management might have an easier chance of prohibiting the flag than a sign.
What is interesting in Oregon’s law is that the rights of expression, speech, and press, are modified by the clause “but every person shall be responsible for the abuse of this right.” Again, I do not know how this law has been judicially interpreted, but clearly, it suggests that the freedom is balanced against an abuse of the right.
In this vein, ORS 90.740(4)(j) provides that one of a resident’s legal duties in a community is to:
Behave, and require persons on the premises with the consent of the tenant to behave, in a manner that does not disturb the peaceful enjoyment of the premises by neighbors.
So, my take, is the following:
- Each situation must be viewed on a case-by-case basis, depending not only upon the signage, but the demographics of the community itself. In other words, certain signs in certain communities may not be viewed as provocative or inflammatory, and therefore be permissible.
- However, here’s the rub: All it takes is one person with a provocative sign that offends an entire community, to enlist the aid of the ACLU, and you may quickly confront the reality of the legal cost for protecting the “peaceful enjoyment” of the rest of the community.
So in the final analysis, my belief is that the “peaceful enjoyment” language of ORS 90.740(4)(j), protecting the community’s residents as a whole, coupled with Oregon’s constitutional protection against abuse of the right of free speech, together provide a legitimate basis for prohibiting non-political signage that could be deemed offensive to the rest of the community. However, such proscriptions should only be broadly spelled out in management’s rules, rather than expressly deeming certain topics permissible, and others impermissible. For example:
“Residents shall not post on their spaces or homes, signs, emblems, flags, slogans, or similar expressions, which, by their nature, could be viewed as offensive or inflammatory to other residents, and thereby interfering with their peaceful enjoyment of the Community.”
However, if the signage relates to political candidates, campaigns, politicians, and legislation, etc., ORS 90.755 appears to give residents broad rights, subject only to the size of the signage and length of time it may appear. Lastly, I would believe that the use of profane or vulgar images or text in political signs may be reasonably prohibited by management.
 This is why community management should carry sizeable liability insurance.