Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

Free speech methodology (Content neutral law (Examples (City of Renton v.…

- - - - Reed v. Town of Gilbert: aesthetic or traffic safety is not a CI
      - Williams-Yulee v. Florida Bar: law restricting judicial candidates from asking for donations personally held up to SS, there was a CI and it was NT
  - - - Boos v. Barry: a law that didn't allow signs outside an embassy with negative words about that government was content based, viewpoint neutral, and did not hold up to SS
    - - Carey v. Brown: city prohibited picketing in residential neighborhoods unless it was connected to labor, court held that whenever the government attempts to regulate speech in public places it must be subject matter neutral
      - Simon & Schuster v. NY State Crime Victims Board: law that forbade criminals from making money publishing about their crimes was not narrowly tailored
- - - - Not always followed because the secondary affects of a law does not per se make a law not content based
- - - - Regulation must be content neutral unless the government can justify a content based restriction through SS
        
        Police Dept of Chicago v. Mosley: law treating types of picketing differently based on subject matter was unconstitutional
      - Must be a reasonable time, place, or manner restriction that serves an important government interest and leaves open adequate alternative places for speech
        
        Hill v. CO: law restricting any type of protesting at abortion clinics was okay because the law was content neutral, was a regulation of place not message, and the state has an interest in protecting access and privacy
        
        McCullen v. Coakley: same law as above, the law is not content based therefore SS is not required, however it is not NT because its not enough to say that other approaches haven't worked
        
        Loudspeaker restrictions are okay (Grayned v. Rockford), regulations restricting sleeping in tents are okay (Clark v. Community for Creative Non-Violence), silent protests are okay (Brown v. LA; US v. Grace)
        
        Hague v. Comm. for Industrial Org.: union workers handing out information can use streets and parks to communicate views on national questions, but they may be regulated for comfort, convenience, and peace and good order
        
        Schneider v. NJ: law requiring anyone handing out flyers had to get approval from the chief of police unconstitutional because this was not within reasonable regulations, cleanliness of streets is not a GI
      - A licensing or permit system for the use of public forums must serve an important purpose, give clear criteria to the licensing authority that leaves almost no discretion, and provide procedural safeguards
        
        Parade licenses are okay as long as the restrictions aren't unreasonable (Cox v. NH; Lovell v. Griffin), protest fees cannot be arbitrary (Forsyth County v. Nationalist Movement; Cox v. NH)
      - The government does not need to use the least restrictive alternative, although they must be narrowly tailored to achieve the government's purpose
        
        Ward v. Rock Against Racism: law restricting sound levels of a public amphitheater is constitutional
    - - Cannot restrict which groups can meet at schools (Widmar v. Vincent; Lamb's Chapel v. Center Moriches School; Good News Club v. Milford Central School)
    - - Christian Legal Society v. Martinez: university regulated that student groups must accept all members regardless of religion or sexual orientation because the university had created a limited public forum and the regulation was allowed because it was reasonable and viewpoint neutral
    - - The government may prohibit or restrict speech in nonpublic forums as long as the regulation is reasonable and viewpoint neutral
      - No protests or leafletting in an NPF (Adderley v. FL; Greer v. Spock; US v. Kokinda), can leaflet at airports (Intl Soc. for Krishna Consciousness v. Lee)