Chapter 11: Constraints of Time, Place, and Manner Flashcards
Davis v. Massachusetts
Facts: Davis is arrested for preaching in Boston Common without a permit
Decision: SCOTUS sides with the state and upholds the permitting scheme
Significance: SCOTUS uses a property ownership argument to grant the government the right to regulate speech on its property in the same way a private property owner could
Hague v. Congress of Industrial Organizations (CIO)
Facts: Hague, the mayor of Jersey City prohibits groups from conducting public meetings in Jersey City parks. The CIO challenges the rule.
Decision: SCOTUS sides with the CIO arguing that throughout history, the US has recognized certain areas, such as parks, as public meeting places open for assembly and debate
Significance: SCOTUS establishes that certain spaces must remain open to the public for expression. The use of these spaces can be regulated but not prohibited.
Know the quote about certain places historically being open to the public
Schneider v. State
Facts: 4 cities try to prohibit handbill distribution on public streets to reduce litter
Decision: SCOTUS strikes down the ordinances
Significance: Establishes that while expression in the streets can be regulated, it can not be fully banned
Cox v. New Hampshire
Facts: Cox (Jehovah’s Witness) holds a march without a permit on a public street
Decision: SCOTUS sides with NH because their permitting scheme and fee were non-discretionary/non-discriminatory
Significance: Provides an example of how public spaces can be constitutionally regulated by the government
Jamison v. Texas
Facts: Jamison (Jehovah’s Witness) is convicted for distributing religious leaflets in Dallas. Dallas uses Davis v. Massachusetts to defend the prohibition
Decision: SCOTUS sides with Jamison
Significance: SCOTUS officially rejects Davis v. Massachusetts but again emphasizes that regulations are permissible
Grayned v. Rockford
Facts: Rockford, IL places a ban on any noise or diversion that disrupts school activities. Grayned is arrested for violating the ordinances during a protest about racial representation
Decision: SCOTUS upholds the ordinance arguing that the expression was incompatible with the normal activity of that particular place at that particular time
Significance: SCOTUS establishes the Compatible Use Rule, which is used to decide where public expression can occur
Edwards v. South Carolina
SCOTUS uses the Compatible Use Rule to uphold protesters’ right to peacefully assemble on the grounds of the South Carolina capital building.
Reasoning: The protest did not inhibit the activity of legislators in the capital building
United States v. Grace
SCOTUS uses the Compatible Use Rule to uphold protesters’ right to peacefully assemble on the sidewalks in front of the US Supreme Court
Reasoning: Protests do no not disrupt Supreme Court proceedings
Adderley v. Florida
SCOTUS uses the Compatible Use Rule to prevent protesters from assembling on the grounds of a jail
Reasoning: large crowds pose a threat to security and thus are incompatible with the purpose of a jail
Cameron v. Johnson
SCOTUS uses the Compatible Use Rule to prevent protesters from blocking entrances to government property
Reasoning: this expression is incompatible with the daily flow of people in and out of government buildings
Greer v. Spock
SCOTUS uses the Compatible Use Rule to prohibit partisan political expressions on military bases.
Reasoning: Military bases are designed to train soldiers and political debate might interfere with this goal.
Perry Education Association v. Perry Local Educators’ Association
Facts: PEA wins an election that gives them exclusive rights to the interschool mail system and teacher mailboxes. PLEA sues, arguing that the mailboxes are a public forum.
Decision: SCOTUS sides with PEA arguing that the mailboxes are considered a non-public forum
Significance:
The Three-Part Public Forum Rule
1. Quintessential/All-Purpose Public Forum: places that have traditionally been devoted to assembly and debate. The government can only create time, place, and manner restrictions here.
2. Limited Purpose Public Forum: government-owned property that the state has explicitly opened for public use. If opened, these forums must be open to everybody; discrimination is not allowed.
3. Non-Public Forums: government property that is not by tradition or designation a forum for public communication. No first amendment guarantees exist here.
International Society for Krishna Consciousness v. Lee
Facts: International Society for Krishna Consciousness challenges New York and New Jersey bans on the solicitation of money and distribution of literature in airports
Decision: SCOTUS sides with the government
Significance: The Three Part Public Forum rule is used to declare that airports are non-public forums and thus do not have to guarantee 1st amendment protections to visitors
Boos v. Barry
Facts: Boos challenges a DC law that prohibits the display of any sign within 500 ft of a country’s embassy that is critical of that country
Decision: SCOTUS sides with Boos but upholds the section of the law that allows police to disperse a crowd that threatens the security or peace of the embassy
Significance: SCOTUS uses the Three Part Public Forum rule to decide that the streets around the embassy are a quintessential public forum and therefore content-based restrictions are not permissible there
Collin v. Smith
Facts: Skokie (Jewish Community) announces 3 new ordinances after the American Nazi Party makes plans to demonstrate there
1. Permit applicants must secure $350,000 in insurance coverage
2. Protesters can’t disseminate racist or religiously hateful material
3. Protesters can’t wear military-style uniforms
Decision: SCOTUS sides with Collin (Nazi) and rules that all three ordinances are unconstitutional
Significance: Example of unprotected restrictions of speech in a public forum
Forsyth Co. Georgia v. Nationalist Movement
Facts: Under an ordinance that requires demonstraters to pay a fee <$1000 per day, Forsyth imposes a $100 fee on the Nationalist Movement group that wanted to march in Forsyth
Decision: SCOTUS rules that the ordinance is unconstitutional because the fee was discretionary
Significance: Discretionary restrictions on speech are not constitutional
Thomas v. Chicago Park
Facts: Windy City Hemp Development challenges the Chicago permitting scheme after being denied a license to use the park
Decision: SCOTUS sides with Chicago because the licensing process was non-discriminatory, non-discretionary, speedy, and allowed for appeals.
Significance: Demonstrates how speech in a public forum can constitutionally be restricted
Ladue v. Gilleo
Facts: Gilleo challenges a Ladue ordinance that prohibits most signs on residential property
Decision: SCOTUS strikes down the ordinance because it is overbroad
Significance: The government cannot regulate the speech of a private citizen on their own property
Marsh v. Alabama
Facts: Marsh (Jehova’s Witness) is arrested in Chickasaw (company town) for distributing leaflets
Decision: SCOTUS sides with Marsh
Significance: Although company towns are privately owned, they must follow the same rules as normal towns. Thus, quintessential public forums cannot be completely closed to free speech.
Amalgamated Food Employees Union v. Logan Valley
Facts: Logan Valley mall obtained a court order that prevented the employees union from protesting on its property. The union challenged the order.
Decision: SCOTUS sides with the union
Significance: Although the mall was privately owned, it functioned as a “business block” which meant that protesters had the right to access the parking lots/sidewalks around it.
Lloyd Corp v. Tanner
Facts: Anti-war protesters challenge an order from mall security to leave the premises
Decision: SCOTUS sides with the mall because the mall does not function like a town (as seen in Marsh)
Significance: Private property owners have the right to limit the speech of non-associated individuals and groups on their property
Hudgens v. NLRB
Facts: protesters try to picket a specific store inside a mall
Decision: SCOTUS rules in favor of Hudgens (the mall owner)
Significance: Logan Valley is overturned. Property owners are given the right to control all expressions on their property.
West Virginia v. Barnett
Facts: Jehovah’s Witnesses refused to salute the flag in school
Decision: SCOTUS sides with Barnett
Significance: Saluting the flag is a form of symbolic speech that cannot be compelled
United States v. O’Brien
Facts: O’Brien is arrested for burning his draft card in a symbolic anti-war gesture
Decision: SCOTUS sides with the government
Significance: SCOTUS establishes that speech protections can be violated if the government has a substantial interest in preventing its associated action
O’Brien Test for Speech Plus
1. Is the regulation within the government’s authority
2. Does it further a substantial government interest?
3. Is the interest unrelated to free expression?
4. Is the restriction greater than necessary?
Texas v. Johnson
Facts: Johnson burns a flag and is convicted under a Texas law that prevents desecrating a sacred object
Decision: SCOTUS sides with Johnson arguing that it is not up to the government to decide what is and isn’t a sacred object
Significance: Flag burning is upheld as a constitutional form of speech plus
United States v. Eichmann
Facts: Eichman burns a flag on the steps of the capital in protest of the Flag Protection Act of 1989
Decision: SCOTUS rules that the Flag Protection Act is Unconstitutional
Significance: SCOTUS reinforces its decision that flag burning is a constitutional form of speech plus
