Foundational Cases – Content-neutral regulations of speech

1. Foundational Cases – Content-neutral regulations of speech • Schneider, Martin, Kovacs involved content-neutral time, place and manner restrictions. (Yet Court struck all but one (Kovacs) down) • Some themes emerge from the Court’s early cases • State interests (aesthetics, privacy, traffic concerns?) were fine but concern was whether needed these particular restrictions to meet them • Certain modes of speech are especially important to speakers because they are cheap and easy (leafleting, speaking on street corners, door-to-door distribution) • SCT especially disfavors stringent regulation or bans on those modes of speech • Total medium bans (even if they don’t involve the above modes of speech) are likely to be scrutinized more carefully by the Court • These themes & interests appear in SCT’s current cases involving intermediate scrutiny even if they do so occasionally in an unspoken way.

2. The modern rules re: regulation of speech in traditional public fora • What is a public forum? • Public streets, parks and sidewalks are “traditional public fora” • As in Hague, they cannot be closed to expressive activity. • Regulation of speech is not prohibited. Rather, content discrimination principles apply: • Content-based restrictionssubject to strict scrutiny (law must be necessary to meet a compelling state interest) Grayned & Mosley (p. 136) • Content-neutral restrictionssubject to intermediate scrutiny (law must be narrowly drawn to meet important state interest and leave open ample alternatives of communication) Ward v. Rock Against Racism (p. 146 n.1)

3. Clark v. CCNV • National Park Service Regulations: • Camping is allowed in national parks only in designated park sites. 36 CFR § 50.27(a). No such campgrounds exist in Lafayette Park. • NPS may also grant permits for airing of views or grievances, including the use of temporary structures but such structures may be used only for demonstration purposes and not for camping. • NPS granted permit allowing CCNV to conduct round-the-clock demonstration in Lafayette Park (including the erection of two symbolic tent cities) but would not grant them the ability to sleep in the tent cities as a symbolic act of expression. • In other words – NPS followed its regulations in granting permits to CCNV.

4. Clark v. CCNV • What is the government’s asserted interest? Is that interest important? • Is the NPS’s enforcement of its regulations narrowly drawn to meet that interest in these circumstances? • Are there less restrictive alternatives? • Why doesn’t the Court seriously consider other alternatives? • Should government’s administrative burden ever be enough to justify a broader restriction if a narrower restriction is available? • Are there alternative avenues of communicating CCNV’s message regarding the plight of the homeless? Are they as effective?

5. Taxpayers for Vincent • What is the city’s asserted interest? • Is the ban on signs on public property narrowly drawn to meet that interest? • Are there less restrictive alternatives (compare Schneider)? • What is the import of the Court’s statement that “visual blight” is the substantive evil? • Does the ordinance leave open ample alternatives of communication?

6. Ladue v. Gilleo • Ladue ordinance prohibited all signs except those that fell w/in 10 exemptions. The ordinance prohibited Gilleo from having political signs on her property. City’s reasons – aesthetics. • Is the ordinance content-based or content-neutral? • Why does the Court strike the ordinance down? • Does it apply intermediate scrutiny to do so?