sign ordinance whose “grandfather” clause allowed certain speakers to use nonconforming signs, observing that “[e]ven if a complete ban on nonconforming signs would be permissible, we must consider carefully the government’s decision to pick and choose among the speakers permitted to use such signs”). The sign code exemptions that pick and choose the speakers entitled to preferential treatment are no less content based than those that select among subjects or messages. Moreover, even insofar as § 27-581 simply allows some types of messages to be displayed in a more prominent manner than others — for example, using flashing lights or moving parts — it constitutes content-based regulation of speech. See Café Erotica of Fla., Inc. v. St. John’s County, 360 F.3d 1274, 1289 (11th Cir.2004) (<HOLDING>); Whitton v. City of Gladstone, 54 F.3d 1400,
holding defendant who failed to request limiting instruction concerning use of extraneous offenses at the moment the evidence was admitted was not entitled to limiting instructions in jury charge holding that the sale of music buttons and bumper stickers bearing political religious and ideological messages was fully protected by the first amendment holding that limiting signs displaying political messages to a smaller size than signs displaying other types of messages constituted content discrimination recognizing distinction between two types of waiver holding defense applicable to both types of claims