A judge ruled Monday that Hustler Publisher Larry Flynt is entitled to free speech but not at the expense of ignoring zoning laws and Ohio regulations.

Hamilton County Common Pleas Common Pleas Court Judge Richard Niehaus ruled Monday that Hustler is violating zoning laws and Ohio Department of Transportation rules in placing a banner on the outside wall of a Springfield Township building adjacent to heavily traveled Interstate 75.

“Good,” said Phil Burress, head of the Sharonville-based private anti-pornography group, Citizens for Community Values, or CCV. “The law doesn’t matter to the Flynts.

“They’re going to do whatever they want and then cause taxpayers to pursue them to comply.”

The banner on the Springfield Township building advertises Flynt’s Hustler store in Monroe, Ohio.

CCV and others who object to Flynt’s business have pushed governments to adopt laws that regulate sexually oriented businesses. Flynt and his lawyers are fighting back, saying groups like CCV and politicians who act for them and their constituents are trampling over the free speech rights of not just Flynt, but all others those groups may oppose.

“Of course we’re picking on them,” Burress said. “They keep violating the law.”

Niehaus rejected Monday arguments from Hustler attorneys that the issue is one of violating the constitutionally protected right of free speech.

Before he would even consider the free speech issue, Niehaus told them, Hustler must comply with zoning and ODOT regulations that require such banners to be located on structures at least 550 feet back from I-75 or its entrance and exit ramps.

Last December, the Hamilton County Board of Zoning Appeals notified MSV Properties — owner of the 125 City Centre Drive building where the banner is erected and also home of tenant Hustler-Hollywood Ohio — that because MSV has no zoning certificate for the banner, it must be removed.

Wendy Calaway, one of the Cincinnati attorneys representing Hustler on the issue, doesn’t deny erecting banners violates zoning codes.

Her argument is, and has been, that the banners are being banned because of their content — promoting a sexually oriented business — that violates constitutionally protected free speech rights, including the prior restraint of speech.

“A prior restraint exists when one’s ability to engage in political, commercial or expressive speech is contingent upon the approval of the government,” Calaway said.

Needing a permit is prior restraint, Calaway said, because government gets to decide whether or not someone can express himself with a sign.

In an April hearing before the Hamilton County Board of Zoning Appeals, that board noted it doesn’t even consider sign content when such issues are before it. It’s only consideration is the size, location and legality of the signs and banners.

“That’s our problem with it,” she told the board. “You have to go to the government and say, ‘Can we put this up?’ ” Calaway said in the April hearing.

When that board unanimously decided the signs were there illegally and without a zoning certificate, it told the building owner to remove it.

That decision was appealed by Hustler to the Common Pleas Court.

In August, the three-member Hamilton County Board of Commissioners unanimously agreed to ask the prosecutor to get involved. Commissioners asked the prosecutor to seek “damages” against Hustler for not removing the I-75 banner.

Now, Burress said, despite Monday’s ruling Flynt still is profiting. “They know they were in violation. They just wanted to keep the sign up there as long as they could so they could advertise their (business),” Burress said.

The sides have a Jan. 29 hearing with Niehaus to decide exactly what will happen to the banner.

If the issue isn’t resolved — Calaway said Monday she was “almost 100 percent sure” it would be resolved by removing the banner — Niehaus could issue a court order removing it.

If Hustler violates that court order and the banner remains, the judge can fine Hustler $100 per day per violation.

Burress said Flynt has a history of thumbing his nose at Hamilton County authorities.

After his first obscenity conviction in the 1970s, Flynt faced another possible obscenity conviction in 1999 in Hamilton County for selling sexually explicit videos.

In a plea bargain, in exchange for criminal charges against Flynt and his brother to be dropped, the publisher allowed his corporation to be convicted, pay a fine and agreed to never again sell those kinds of videos in Hamilton County.

Next month, though, Flynt will be back in court where prosecutors are asking a judge to reinstate the 1999 charges, alleging Flynt violated the plea agreement by continuing to sell videos.

Flynt’s lawyers have argued that Hamilton County now, four years later, is ready for such videos and Flynt wants to be allowed to sell them because a market exists for them.

“We got ourselves a track record here,” Burress said of Flynt flaunting the law.