In Reed v Town of Gilbert,  Ariz., 135 S. Ct. 2218 (2015), the Supreme Court held that a town’s sign regulations violated the First Amendment because they were content based and could not survive “strict scrutiny.”

A ‘content based’ regulation is one that restricts a particular kind of content.  In the town of Gilbert, a regulation strictly limited temporary directional signs for religious events.  In its opinion, the court said:

“Because content-based laws target speech based on its communicative content, they are presumptively unconstitutional and may be justified only if the government proves that they are narrowly tailored to serve compelling state interests. E.g., R. A. V. v. St. Paul, 505 U. S. 377, 395.

 In contrast, a content-neutral regulation for signs might be one that restricts the size or safety features  of a sign. That kind of regulation only has to survive intermediate scrutiny, which tests whether a law  is narrowly tailored to serve a substantial government interest.

Following Reed, it is obvious on the face of it that the  City of Radford’s  Greek Sign Ordinances violates the First Amendment.  Other cases concerning content specific laws, if applied to the city of Radford’s regulation,  would very likely have led to this same conclusion.

Further reading:  

Supreme Court Opinion, Reed v Town of Gilbert, June 18, 2015.

What’s wrong with the Greek Sign Ordinances?   (This site) 

Susan L. Trevarthen * and Adam M. Hapner ** (Summer, 2020). LOCAL GOVERNMENT LAW SYMPOSIUM: ARTICLE: THE TRUE IMPACT OF REED V. TOWN OF GILBERT ON SIGN REGULATION. Stetson Law Review, 49, 509. https://advance-lexis-com.radford.idm.oclc.org/api/document?collection=analytical-materials&id=urn:contentItem:6059-M551-DXPM-S018-00000-00&context=1516831.