VANCOUVER - Vancouver city officials have rewritten a controversial sign bylaw that enraged activists who alleged it would give police sweeping powers to enter homes and seize protest materials during the 2010 Winter Olympics.

And while critics say the changes represent a definite improvement, an activist who is suing the city to have the bylaws thrown out said they don't go far enough to stop the lawsuit.

At issue are a series of proposed bylaws that, among other things, will give the city power to tackle ambush marketing during the Games by quickly removing signs that are erected without proper permits. Such signs have been illegal for decades under existing bylaws, but it can take weeks or months to have them removed.

Under the proposed bylaws, that process could take as little as a day or two during the Olympics, and bylaw officers and police will be able to enter private property to remove signs if they obtain a warrant or the signs pose an immediate safety risk.

The revised bylaw changes, which will be presented to city council next week, limit the stricter enforcement rules to commercial signs only. That means any non-commercial signs put up during the Games would be subject to existing bylaws, which require a 30-day notice and leave the city with little power to act until after the Olympics are over.

Coun. Geoff Meggs said the goal was never to attack political speech, but to stop businesses from breaking the law to make a buck during the Games.

"I never underestimate the importance of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, but I have thought some of the scenarios people painted were extraordinary," Meggs told reporters on Thursday.

"The city was never intending under any scenario to kick down doors and take fridge magnets or tear off their T-shirts -- and I've heard all of these scenarios proposed."

The bylaws also shrink the areas around venues that activities that could disrupt Olympic celebrations -- such as loud protests with megaphones -- are prohibited.

But the rules inside those areas, another source of contention for the plaintiffs in the lawsuit, have not been changed in the revisions.

Olympic critic Chris Shaw, one of the people behind the lawsuit, said the court challenge will continue unless those restrictions are relaxed, as well.

"It seems that they're still distinguishing between two kinds of free expression -- one is to celebrate and one is to dissent," Shaw said in an interview.

"I still can't walk into a celebratory zone and speak into a loud speaker, I still can't walk into a celebratory zone and hand out stuff. I can't do anything that's going to disturb people enjoying the Games."

Shaw said the city should instead scrap its Olympic restrictions entirely.

"In my view, they should not be in the books at all," he said. "These sort of restrictions on freedom of expression are problematic under any circumstances."

Local police and the RCMP-led Olympic security unit have insisted they intend to ensure protests and other regular activities can go ahead, and Vancouver's police chief has said his officers won't become "sign police."

The city bylaws don't deal with signs that violate Olympic trademarks, such as the rings or mascots. If the offending signs in those cases are legal under the municipal bylaws, it will be up to the Vancouver organizing committee to seek a court injunction.