 Because the ordinance imposed content @-@ based restrictions on free speech , Justice Thomas held that the ordinance would only be constitutional if it survived strict scrutiny . Assuming that the town 's interests of preserving aesthetic appeal and traffic safety were compelling , he concluded that these were " hopelessly <unk> " because the ordinance allowed for the proliferation of an unlimited number of larger , ideological signs that pose the same threats to aesthetics and traffic as directional signs . In fact , Justice Thomas suggested that a " sharply worded " ideological sign may be more likely to distract drivers than a directional sign . Justice Thomas also suggested that some directional signs " may be essential , both for vehicles and pedestrians , to guide traffic or to identify hazards and ensure safety " . Therefore , Justice Thomas remanded the case for reconsideration in light of the Court 's opinion . 
