PROVIDENCE — In a decision sprinkled with music references, and including links to YouTube, a federal judge has ruled unconstitutional a state law that restricts the content of billboards near highways.

U.S. District Judge William E. Smith on Wednesday upheld Anthony Joseph Vono’s right to keep a billboard on top of a building at 101 Poe St., off northbound Route 95 near the Route 195 split. Smith found that state law violated the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution by affording greater protection to commercial speech over political speech.

“The owner of a music store, to take one example, could not replace her ‘Drums for Sale’ sign with a ‘Cut Property Taxes Now!’ message unless she conducted some tax-related activity in the music store,” Smith wrote. “So, while the drum seller, under Rhode Island’s scheme, could not advertise cars, she also would be prohibited from expressing her strongly held views to limit taxes, stop the war, support a candidate or root for the Red Sox.”

State law and regulations prohibit new billboards close to highways with certain exceptions — including an exception for signs “advertising activities conducted on the property upon which they are located.”

The state Department of Transportation cited Vono and his business, Specialty Promotions, in 2005, saying the sign was a public nuisance and violated state law by advertising off-premises activities. He was ordered to remove the billboard, which at the time promoted a nonprofit welfare agency, Casey Family Services Inc. Vono leases the rooftop space from the building owner, Stephen T. Haun.

The Rhode Island Affiliate of the American Civil Liberties Union filed suit on Vono’s behalf, arguing that it is unconstitutional to base restrictions on whether the billboard is promoting on-premises or off-premises activities.

State lawyers said in arguments in October 2007 that Vono was within his rights when he put up a sign advertising his business, but they say he violated the law when he began selling billboard space promoting things that had nothing to do with that site.

John W. Dineen, who represented Vono for the ACLU, praised the ruling: “The court’s decision reaffirms one of the most important principles of the First Amendment, that the government must not be in the business of allowing or prohibiting speech based in any way on the content of that expression.”

Remaining unclear is exactly what the implications might be, or if the decision would be appealed. Representatives of the DOT and the attorney general’s office both said the ruling was being reviewed.

Steven Brown, executive director of the ACLU affiliate, said the decision would provide billboard operators more freedom to advertise what they choose. “I think there are many others in the clear now because Mr. Vono chose to pursue this.”

Asked about references in his ruling to and Web links to songs such as the Beatles’ “The Long and Winding Road” and Five Man Electrical Band’s “Signs,” Judge Smith explained that he wanted to make the decision more interesting to read and perhaps more accessible to the under-30, computer-oriented generation.

“The novelty of citations to YouTube and the idea that you could access music as you plod through the opinion hopefully makes a kind of dry subject a little more fun and interesting,” he wrote in an e-mail. “It seems to me that judges should look for ways to get people interested in important subjects like the First Amendment, to get them talking about it. Hopefully this will accomplish that goal in a small way.”

With reports from Journal political columnist Edward Fitzpatrick

kmulvane@projo.com