CC_Minutes_2003_0106 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

JAN-06-2003 14:23 RATWIK ROSZAK MALONEY 6123390038 P.09 Mr. Neal Beets January 6, 2003 Page 3 of6 expressive activity, where the principal function of such property would be disrupted by expressive activity. Examples of non public fora include prisons and military bases. United States v. Albertini, 472 U.S. 675, 685-86 (1985); Greer v. Spoc~ 424 U.S. 828, 838 (1976). Under this framework the City Council chambers, as well as varied meeting rooms at the Oval, are classified as designated or limited public fora. B. Neutral Time, Place and Manner Restrictions Limited public fora may be regulated only via content neutral time, place and manner restrictions. Paulsen, 925 F.2d at 69. To survive judicial scrutiny, such restrictions must be justified without reference to the content of the regulated speech, must be narrowly tailored to serve a significant governmental interes~ and must leave open ample alternative channels of conlmunication of the infonnation. International Society for Krishna Consciousness Inc.~ v. Lee~ 505 U.S. 672,678-79; Cornelius v. NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, 473 U,S. 788t 800 (1985). The government may limit access to certain speakers (e.g., student groups) or certain subjects (school board business). Widmar v. Vincent, 454 U.S. 263 (1981); Ci~- cf~v1adison JOiI1! School Tlistrict v. Wisconsin P11blic Em lavment Relations Comm'Il, 429 U.S. 167 (1976). It also need not keep such a forum open indefinitely. ~ 460 U.S. at 46. However, restrictions on use or availability must be applied evenhandedly to all similarly situated parties., Id. at 45-46 and n.7. Under this framework, a city ma.y not restrict the use of city facilities so as to deny access to anyone particular group. Such a regulation would not be content neutral because it cannot be applied without regard to the type of organization or speech that may occur at a particular meeting. Furthermore, it is not applied evenhandedly to all similarly situated parties~ but designed specifically to target one group. A regulation of this sort cannot be justified without reference to the content of the speech, and therefore would not survive judicial scrutiny. On the other hand, a city has the ability to restrict the use of city facilities to certain hours. This restriction is content neutral, as it applies without regard to the type of organization or speech that may occur at a particular meeting. Second, the regulation is narrowly tailored to serve a significant governmental interest. On the question of whether a regulation is narrowly tailored to achieve the significant governmental interest~ the Supreme Court has stressed that the time place and lnanner requirements need not be the least restrictive or least intrusive means of achieving the govemment's end. Rather, the requirement of narrow tailoring is satisfied "so long as the.. . regulation promotes a substantial government interest that would be achieved less effectively absent the regulation." Ward v. Rock Against Racis!!!, 491 U.S. 781 (1989) (quoting Clark 468 U.S. at 293).