I.The Supreme Court Of The United States Should Affirm
1681 WordsMar 26, 20177 Pages
I. THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES SHOULD AFFIRM THE LOWER COURT’S DECISION BECAUSE THE CITY OF ASTON PANHANDLING ORDINANCE IS A VALID, CONTENT-NEUTRAL TIME, PLACE, AND MANNER RESTRICTION OF SPEECH AND THEREFORE DOES NOT VIOLATE PETITIONER’S FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS.
The First Amendment to the United States Constitution states that government “shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech . . . .” U.S. Const. amend. I. Nevertheless, the First Amendment protection of free speech is not absolute; even protected speech is not equally permissible in all places and at all times. ACLU of Nev. v. City of Las Vegas, 333 F.3d 1092, 1098 (9th Cir. 2003). However, traditional public forums such as streets, sidewalks, and other public…show more content…
Supp. 3d 1276, 1288 (D. Colo. 2015). Conversely, municipalities may impose reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions on speech as long as the regulation is content-neutral. Id. A regulation is content-neutral if it is justified without reference to the regulated speech. Id. Such restrictions are subject to intermediate scrutiny and must be narrowly tailored to serve a significant government interest and leave open ample alternative channels of communication. Doucette v. City of Santa Monica, 955 F. Supp. 1192, 1203 (C.D. Cal. 1997). Regulations that distinguish based only upon the manner in which speakers transmit their messages, and not upon the messages they carry are content-neutral. Turner Broad. Sys. v. FCC, 512 U.S. 622, 645 (1994). Furthermore, it is not unreasonable to prohibit solicitation on the ground that it is unquestionably a particular form of speech that is disruptive of business. United States v. Kokinda, 497 U.S. 720, 733 (1990). The inherent nature of solicitation itself is a content-neutral ground. Id. at 736. Moreover, a speech restriction applying impartially to all persons or organizations is content-neutral. Heffron v. Int 'l Soc. for Krishna Consciousness, 452 U.S. 640, 642 (1981).
In Heffron v. International Society for Krishna Consciousness, Inc., this Court upheld a regulation of the Minnesota State fair, which restricted solicitations for monetary donations and required all persons and groups selling or