Time, place, and manner restrictions
The free speech zone at the 2004 Democratic National Convention
Grayned v. The City of Rockford (1972) summarized the time, place, manner concept: "The crucial question is whether the manner of expression is basically incompatible with the normal activity of a particular place at a particular time."[SUP][11][/SUP] Time, place, and manner restrictions must withstand
intermediate scrutiny.
Note that any regulations that would force speakers to change how or what they say do not fall into this category (so the government cannot restrict one medium even if it leaves open another). Ward v. Rock Against Racism (1989) held that time, place, or manner restrictions must:[SUP][12]
[/SUP]
- Be content neutral
- Be narrowly tailored
- Serve a significant governmental interest
- Leave open ample alternative channels for communication
Freedom of speech is also sometimes limited to so-called free speech zones, which can take the form of a wire fence enclosure, barricades, or an alternative venue designed to segregate speakers according to the content of their message. There is much controversy surrounding the creation of these areas – the mere existence of such zones is offensive to some people, who maintain that the First Amendment makes the entire country an unrestricted free speech zone.[SUP][13][/SUP] Civil libertarians often claim that Free Speech Zones are used as a form of censorship and public relations management to conceal the existence of popular opposition from the mass public and elected officials.[SUP][13][/SUP] The Department of Homeland Security under the Bush Administration "ha[d] even gone so far as to tell local police departments to regard critics of the War on Terrorism as potential terrorists themselves."[SUP][14][/SUP][SUP][15][/SUP]
