Content Neutrality

Question 1

Reed v. Town of Gilbert (2015)

Answer 1

Content Neutrality, Strict Scrutiny, Signage regulation was facially content-based and failed strict scrutiny.

Question 2

Police Department of the City of Chicago v. Mosley (1972)

Answer 2

Content Neutrality, TPM, Picketing regulation exempting peaceful labor demonstrations was content-based discrimination in a public forum and not a proper Time, Place, and Manner restriction.

Question 3

Carey v. Brown (1980

Answer 3

Content Neutrality, TPM, Picketing regulation exempted labor picketing and was invalid content-based discrimination, which must be narrowly tailored to achieve a substantial state interest.

Question 4

Matal v. Tam (2017)

Answer 4

Content Neutrality, Government Speech, Trademark, Prohibition of disparaging trademarks was invalid as viewpoint-based discrimination against offensive speech.

Question 5

Iancu v. Brunetti (2019)

Answer 5

Content Neutrality, Government Speech, Trademark, FUCT was immoral and scandalous (not disparaging), but the restriction was viewpoint-based discrimination and facially invalid.

Question 6

Simon & Schuster, Inc. v. Members of the New York State Crime Victims Board (1991)

Answer 6

Content Neutrality, Son of Sam law prevented criminals from profiting off their crimes and gave proceeds to Board. Held invalid as content-based discrimination and didn’t pass strict scrutiny.

Question 7

Burson v. Freeman (1992)

Answer 7

Content Neutrality, TPM, Election Law, State law prohibited political activity within 100 feet of polls. Upheld under strict scrutiny because compelling interest in election integrity and narrowly tailored.

Question 8

Republican Party of Minnesota v. White (2002)

Answer 8

Content Neutrality, State law cannot prohibit judicial candidates from announcing views on legal and political issues.

Question 9

Williams-Yulee v. Florida Bar (2015)

Answer 9

Content Neutrality, State can prohibit judicial candidates from personally soliciting funds. Passes strict scrutiny.