Time, Place, and Manner Flashcards
Massachusetts v. David (1897)
TPM, Government can limit speech on their property through basic property rights.
Hague v. Committee for Industrial Organization (1939)
TMP, Public Forum, Streets and parks are held in trust for use by the public, which is a citizen’s right to use peacefully and without interfering with general welfare.
Saia v. New York (1948)
TPM, Prior Restraint, Law requiring permit for use of loudspeaker in public streets held invalid as prior restraint (no room for discretion).
Cox v. Louisiana (1965)
TPM, Provoking Disorder/Unlawful Conduct, State cannot prohibit obstruction of public thoroughfares without clear guidelines for granting exceptions (unbridled discretion for exemptions not allowed).
Madsen v. Women’s Health Center, Inc. (1994)
TPM, Abortion, Injunction was not content or viewpoint discrimination by their nature. 36’ buffer zone upheld, Noise restrictions upheld, Sign prohibition struck down, Prohibition on uninvited solicitation struck down, 300’ buffer zone struck down. Scalia Dissent: This should get strict scrutiny not ‘intermediate-intermediate’ scruntiny.
Schenck v. Pro-Choice Network of Western New York (1997)
TPM, Abortion, Fixed buffer zone of 15’ upheld but floating buffer zone of 15’ struck down because too burdensome on speech and not necessary to serve relevant government interest.
Hill v. Colorado (2000)
TPM, Abortion, Upheld prohibition as content neutral on nonconsensual approach within 8’ to pass leaflet or engage in oral protest outside of clinic. Scalia Dissent: Punishment depends on what you say, so this is content-based. Tension with Cohen v. California (F the Draft) because people can avert their eyes, but curtilage exception maybe.
McCullen v. Coakley (2014)
TPM, Abortion, Struck down categorical ban on non-patients and non-staff within 35’ of clinic. No strict scrutiny because content-neutral. Serves legitimate government interest, but not narrowly tailored. Scalia Dissent: Primary purpose of regulation is to suppress anti-abortion speech.
Schneider v. New Jersey (1939)
Manner, Flat ban on leafletting in public places invalid as overbroad restriction. Interest in preventing littering can be achieved by less restrictive means.
Martin v. City of Struthers (1943)
Manner, Ban on door-to-door canvassing struck down because protection from crime and annoyance are not substantial reasons for preventing dissemination of information. City could prevent doorbell ringing at houses with no solicitation signs.
Kovacs v. Cooper (1949)
Manner, Upheld ordinance prohibiting loud and raucous noises coming from vehicle in street. Narrowly tailored as to not be a blanket ban.
City of Ladue v. Gilleo (1994)
Manner, Ordinance banned all but 10 categories of signage and barred Gilleo from posting sign in her home window. Ordinance was invalid as underinclusive, even though assumed exceptions were content-neutral.
Watchtower Bible & Tract Society of New York, Inc. v. Village of Stratton (2002)
Manner, Struck down ordinance requiring permits for door-to-door advocacy. Too burdensome on speech, even if content-neutral and not total ban.
Members of City Council v. Taxpayers for Vincent (1984)
Manner, Upheld (under O’Brien Test and as reasonable TPM restriction) ordinance prohibiting signs on public property for aesthetic reasons.
Lehman v. City of Shaker Heights (1974)
Forum Types, City prohibited political ads (but not commercial ads) on city buses. Upheld because city is engaging in commerce (like newspaper ads) and is not a traditional public forum.
