2003 Misc Documents - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

JAN-06-2003 1533 JI 'Il VV GVVV A`7•i.J Ivir. Neal Beets Jat,uary b, 2003 Page 3 df b CITY-OF-RDSEVILLE-ADMIN 1 \f°I f W l h 1\UJLI'7I\ 1 11"IL4.J1 YL / 6514902276 P.10i12 OL tJJ7UYJJ0 f- . KJ7 expressive activity, where the principal function of such property would be disrupted by expressive activity. Examples of noapublie fora intl-~de prisons and military bases. nited States v. Alberbni, 472 U.S. 675, 685-86 (1985); Grreer v. Spark, 424 U.S. 825, 838 {1976). Under this framework, the City Council chambers, as we31 as varied meeting zo4rns at the Oval, are elassif ed as designated or limited public fora. 13. Ne~atraj Time, Place and Manger Restrictions Limited public fora may be regulated only ~vi~t content neutral time, place and manner restrictions. aulsen 925 F_2d at 69. To survive judicial scrutiny, such xesttactions must be justified without reference to the content of the regulated speech, must be aarrowly tailored to serve a siguficant governmental interest, snd must I+cave open ample alternative channels of communication of the information. InternatiQ al S+pciety fQr Krishna Consciousness Inc., v ~, 505 U,S. 67Z, b78-79; Cornelius y NAACP LeggI Defense~tdd Educational Fund, ~t73 U.S. 788, 800 (1985). The government may limit access to certain speakers (e.g_, student groups) ar certain subjects (school board business}. Widmar v. Vincent. 454 U.S. 263 (1981); Citv.of yl~i Bison Joint School District v. Wisconsin Public Employment Relations Comm'n 429 U.S. 167 (1976). It also need not keep such a forwn open indefmitEly. Pin , 4b0 U S, at 46. However, restrictions ot, use or availability must be applied sverthandedly to all siriailarly situated parties. Id. at 45-4b and n.7. Under this franieworl4 a city may not restrict the use of city facilities so as to deny access to any one particular @roup. Such a regulation would not be content neutral because it clannot ba applied without regard to the type of arganiia#ion or speech that may occur at a particular meeting,. k~t'thatmoce, it is not applied evenhandedly to all sixnila~rly situated patties, but designed specifically to target one group. a, regvlati4rt of this sort cannot be justified without reference to the content of the speech, and therefore would not survive judicial scrt~tirly. On tht other hand, a city has the abi3ity tp restrict the use of city facilities to ce~.in hours. This re3triction is content neutral, as at applies without Xea.,ard to the type of orgax-ization or speech that may occur at a particular meeting. Second, the regulation is nat'rowty tailored to serve a sigtlliftcant governmental interest. On the question of whether a regulation is narrowly tailored to achieve the signi5cant governmental interest, the Supreme Cotu~t lies stressed that the time place and matYner requirements need not be the least restrictive or lit intrusive means of achieving the government's end. Rather, the requirement of narrow tailarit~g is satisfied "so long as the...regulatianpromotes asubstantial government interest that would be achietied less effectively absent the regulation: ' V4rard v. Roclt ,A~Aina,~RaCisxxt, 49 t U.S. 7$ l (19$9) (Qustin~Clark 46g U.S, et Zy3).