However, the court did not accept Discount's argument that the free speech clause protects it from the weed ordinance, stating as follows:
But the plaintiff's claim that the free-speech clause insulates all weeds from public control is ridiculous...Its weeds have no expressive dimension. the plaintiff just doesn't want to be bothered with having to have them clipped.The court expressed its concerns about extending "work of art" to weeds, stating that such an interpretation could lead to the following:
Homeowners would be free to strew garbage on their front lawn, graze sheep there, and broadcast Beethoven's Fifth Symphony 24 hours a day through outdoor loudspeakers, all in the name of the First Amendment.Although the court rejected Discount's claims, it did express concerns about enforcement of the City's weed ordinance and the difficulty in defining what is a "weed" and what is a native plant. As a result, municipalities may want to revisit their weed ordinances to make sure the definition is clear enough for property owners to understand and make sure are in compliance. The court provided an example of what it thinks a weed is: "a wild plant growing where it isn't wanted."