Arguments Against Ordinance 328

1. Ordinance 328 is a content-neutral constitutional time, place, and manner regulation because it does not target a specific group or subject matter and is substantially related to St. Leonard's actual interest in protecting the welfare of children. Ordinance 328 is content-neutral because it serves significant government interests of protecting the welfare of children and is justified without reference to the content of the regulated speech. Since the Ordinance is content-neutral it is subject to intermediate scrutiny, and the regulation must be reasonable in time, place, and manner. (CITE WARD). We believe that the freedom of speech should be protected, but so should a family's right to raise their children as they see fit. Children are impressionable and not able to process things in the same manner as adults. Along with parents, the government has an interest in protecting their innocence. The City’s interest in protecting the children from the vulgar images on the petitioner’s truck outweighs the adults’ right to view such gruesome content. The Ordinance only regulates community centers and schools, the petitioner is still free to spread his message …show more content…
Legislative history helps clarify the text when there is statutory ambiguity. See Barnhill v. Johnson, 503 U.S. 393, 401 (1992) (noting reference to legislative history is only useful to resolve statutory ambiguity). Even if we look at the legislative history of Ordinance 328, since its implementation in 2008, it has been applied sparingly and has never been applied based on the content of speech. Ordinance 328 is not subjective. Whether it be a high school pep rally or an animal rights protest if it causes a disturbance it must be regulated. A disturbance is any activity that interferes with the peaceful conduct of religious services or impedes children’s involvement in religious or community activities. (CITE at