The ordinance is not a reasonable time, place, or manner restriction on the defendants’ freedom of speech because it is not narrowly tailored to promote or serve a significant government interest. The ordinance is not narrowly tailored to serve a significant government interest because the ordinance did not promote the public’s general enjoyment of the park, the viability of the park, the public’s health, safety and, welfare, or protect the park from overuse and unsanitary conditions.
Freedom of speech is subject to reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions in traditional public forums. Doyle, 163 N.H. at 221. When analyzing the restriction, a court must first determine if the restriction is content-based or content-neutral. Id. If a …show more content…
at 791 (quoting Clark, 468 U.S. at 293). When determining content neutrality in time, place, or manner restriction cases, the principal question is whether “the government has adopted a regulation of speech because of disagreement with the message it conveys.” Ward, 491 U.S. at 791. The ordinance here is content-neutral because the government’s justification for enacting it did not reference the content of the speech. However, the ordinance is still overbroad as it was applied because it was not narrowly tailored to a significant government interest and therefore not a reasonable, time, place or manner …show more content…
The park ordinance banned everybody from being in the park from 11:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. This blanket prohibition creates an ordinance that was not narrowly tailored to the public’s enjoyment of the park, because the public cannot enjoy the park due to the curfew. Even if the Court finds that the ordinance addresses the governmental interests advanced, the ordinance it still overbroad because it did not promote the significant government interests in the narrow and specific way required when a restriction threatens a fundamental right. The ordinance is not narrowly tailored because instead, it directly impedes the public’s enjoyment of the park by prohibiting all activity and gatherings in the park from 11:00 p.m. to 7:00
Freedom of speech is subject to reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions in traditional public forums. Doyle, 163 N.H. at 221. When analyzing the restriction, a court must first determine if the restriction is content-based or content-neutral. Id. If a …show more content…
at 791 (quoting Clark, 468 U.S. at 293). When determining content neutrality in time, place, or manner restriction cases, the principal question is whether “the government has adopted a regulation of speech because of disagreement with the message it conveys.” Ward, 491 U.S. at 791. The ordinance here is content-neutral because the government’s justification for enacting it did not reference the content of the speech. However, the ordinance is still overbroad as it was applied because it was not narrowly tailored to a significant government interest and therefore not a reasonable, time, place or manner …show more content…
The park ordinance banned everybody from being in the park from 11:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. This blanket prohibition creates an ordinance that was not narrowly tailored to the public’s enjoyment of the park, because the public cannot enjoy the park due to the curfew. Even if the Court finds that the ordinance addresses the governmental interests advanced, the ordinance it still overbroad because it did not promote the significant government interests in the narrow and specific way required when a restriction threatens a fundamental right. The ordinance is not narrowly tailored because instead, it directly impedes the public’s enjoyment of the park by prohibiting all activity and gatherings in the park from 11:00 p.m. to 7:00