CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
W.B. Fisch, Fall 2006
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. 1463 (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. 1464 (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. 1468 (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. 1476 (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?