Parties: CLYDE REED, et al., Petitioners v. TOWN OF GILBERT, ARIZONA, et al.
Date: 2015-06-18
Identifiers:
Opinions:
Segment Sets:
Paragraph: 15 - The First Amendment, applicable to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment, prohibits the enactment of laws "abridging the freedom of speech." U. S. Const., Amdt. 1. Under that Clause, a government, including a municipal government vested with state authority, "has no power to restrict expression because of its message, its ideas, its subject matter, or its content." Police Dep't of Chicago v. Mosley, 408 U. S. 92, 95, 92 S. Ct. 2286, 33 L. Ed. 2d 212 (1972). Content-based laws--those that target speech based on its communicative content--are presumptively unconstitutional and may be justified only if the government proves that they are narrowly tailored to serve compelling state interests.
Notes:
Preferred Terms:
Phrase match: the freedom of speech." U. S
Search time: 2017-10-13 13:47:37 Searcher: ars9ef Editor: ars9ef tcs9pk Segmenter: ars9ef tcs9pk
Paragraph: 35 - a speech regulation is content based if the law applies to particular speech because of the topic discussed or the idea or message expressed. Supra, at ___, 192 L. Ed. 2d, at 245. A regulation that targets a sign because it conveys an idea about a specific event is no less content based than a regulation that targets a sign because it conveys some other idea. Here, the [***26] Code singles out signs bearing a particular message: the time and location of a specific event. This type of ordinance may seem like a perfectly rational way to regulate signs, but [**LEdHR9] [9] a clear and firm rule governing content neutrality is an essential means of protecting the freedom of speech, even if laws that might seem "entirely reasonable" will sometimes be "struck down because of their content-based nature."
Notes:
Preferred Terms:
Phrase match: the freedom of speech, even if
Search time: 2017-10-13 13:47:37 Searcher: ars9ef Editor: ars9ef tcs9pk Segmenter: ars9ef tcs9pk
Paragraph: 30 - Thus, a speech regulation targeted at specific subject matter is content based even if it does not discriminate among viewpoints within that subject matter.
Notes:
Preferred Terms:
Phrase match: Thus, a speech regulation targeted at
Search time: 2017-11-10 14:59:38 Searcher: clm6u Editor: ars9ef tcs9pk Segmenter: ars9ef tcs9pk
Paragraph: 67 - Nonetheless, in these latter instances to use the presence [***35] of content discrimination automatically to trigger strict scrutiny and thereby call into play a strong presumption against constitutionality goes too far. That is because virtually all government activities involve speech, many of which involve the regulation of speech. Regulatory programs almost always require content discrimination. And to hold that such content discrimination triggers strict scrutiny is to write a recipe for judicial management of ordinary government regulatory activity.
Notes:
Preferred Terms:
Phrase match: activities involve speech, many of which
Search time: 2017-11-10 14:59:38 Searcher: clm6u Editor: ars9ef tcs9pk Segmenter: ars9ef tcs9pk
Paragraph: 69 - The Court has said, for example, that we should apply less strict standards to "commercial speech." Central Hudson Gas & Elec. Corp. v. Public Service Comm'n, 447 U.S. 557, 562-563, 100 S. Ct. 2343, 65 L. Ed. 2d 341 (1980). But I have great concern that many justifiable instances of "content-based" regulation are noncommercial. And, worse than that, the Court has applied the heightened "strict scrutiny" standard even in cases where the less stringent "commercial speech" standard was [***37] appropriate. See Sorrell v. IMS Health Inc., [**255] 564 U. S. ___, ___, 131 S. Ct. 2653, 2667, 180 L. Ed. 2d 544, 559 (2011) (Breyer, J., dissenting). The Court has also said that "government speech" escapes First Amendment strictures. See Rust v. Sullivan, 500 U. S. 173, 193-194, 111 S. Ct. 1759, 114 L. Ed. 2d 233 (1991). But regulated speech is typically private speech, not government speech. Further, the Court has said that, N67* "[w]hen the basis for the content discrimination consists entirely of the very reason the entire class of speech at issue is proscribable, no significant danger of idea or viewpoint discrimination exists."
Notes:
Preferred Terms:
Phrase match: to "commercial speech." Central Hudson Gas
Search time: 2017-11-10 14:59:38 Searcher: clm6u Editor: ars9ef tcs9pk Segmenter: ars9ef tcs9pk