The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has ruled that a Jewish family, the Galapos, had the right to display signs on their property condemning hate and racism after enduring an antisemitic slur from a neighboring family during a property dispute a decade ago. The court affirmed that the Galapos were well within their rights under the Pennsylvania Constitution to use their property to express their views, which included messages denouncing racism such as “Hitler Eichmann Racists,” “No Place 4 Racism,” and “Woe to the Racists. Woe to the Neighbors,” totaling 23 signs over several years.
Justice Kevin Dougherty, writing for the court’s 4-2 majority, emphasized the importance of allowing residential expression and cautioned against suppressing such speech, noting that all homeowners may come across signs they disagree with in their neighborhood. On the other hand, Justice Kevin Brobson argued in dissent that judges should intervene when residential speech becomes a private nuisance and interferes with a neighbor’s quiet enjoyment of their property.
The dispute between the Galapo and Oberholtzer families originated from disagreements over property boundaries and landscaping, culminating in the Oberholtzers using an antisemitic slur towards Simon Galapo in 2014. In response, the Galapo family erected protest signs facing the Oberholtzer home. The Oberholtzers sued, claiming the signs were defamatory, put them in a false light, and constituted a nuisance, with Frederick Oberholzer Jr. testifying that all he could see from his windows were signs.
Simon Galapo explained that his intention behind the signs was to speak out against antisemitism and racism, educate his children about standing up against hate, and prompt a change in his neighbors’ behavior. The case went through multiple appeals, with a county judge initially allowing the signs but ordering them to face away from the Oberholtzer property.
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court majority held that forcing the signs to turn away was an infringement on free speech, emphasizing the invaluable right to freely express oneself on any subject as outlined in the state constitution. While acknowledging concerns about the right to quiet enjoyment of property, the court concluded that the Galapo family’s right to free speech took precedence in this situation.
