CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
W.B. Fisch, Fall 2003
Assignment #42
Chapter 14. RESTRICTIONS ON TIME, PLACE, OR MANNER OF
EXPRESSION
1. The Traditional Public Forum: Speech Activities
in Streets and Parks
Schneider v. New Jersey, p. 1359 (1939):
offered for articulation of "traditional public forum" concept and its
limits -- what is special about such a place? What are the limits? Can
the city simply decide to close the streets and parks to all expressive
activity?
FRISBY V. SCHULTZ, p. 1360 (1988)
-
what regulation, with what purpose?
-
is the place of regulation part
of the "traditional public forum"? does it make a difference that the area
in question is residential?
-
is the regulation based on the
content of the message being conveyed? why does it matter?
-
what standard of review does
the Court apply to the regulation?
-
is the city's interest important?
compelling?
-
is the regulation narrowly tailored
to the city's interest? does it restrict more speech activity than is necessary
to protect that interest?
MADSEN V. WOMEN'S HEALTH CENTER, INC., p. 1364 (1994).
-
What regulation, for what purpose?
-
How, if at all, does the form of the regulation (injunction)
affect 1st A. analysis?
-
is the area regulated part of the "traditional public forum"?
-
is the regulation "content-neutral"?
-
how do the various "buffer zones" of the injunction fare
under 1st A. analysis?
-
36-ft., measured from property line: congregation, picketing,
etc.
-
300-ft., measured from "the Clinic"
-
noise
-
"images observable"
-
300-ft., measured from residences of clinic personnel
-
what about 15-ft., measured from the person entering
or leaving? (Schenck, 1997)
HILL V. COLORADO, p. 1372 (2000)
Is a statute regulating speech at health care facilities
different from an injunction?
Is this statute "content-neutral"?
is it a valid "time-place-manner" regulation? Specifically,
does it suppress more speech than is necessary to accomplilsh the legitimate
purpose?
is it unconstitutionally vague?