Restricting Symbolic Expression: The O’Brien Test Govt. regulation of symbolic speech is justified if: it is within the constitutional power of govt. if it furthers an important or substantial govt. interest if the govt. interest is unrelated to the suppression of the free expression if the incidental restriction on the alleged First Amendment freedom is no greater than essential to the furtherance of that interest

Time, Place, and Manner Restrictions (TPM) Recognizing the multi-dimensionality of messages (content and context) Early position--Davis v. Mass. (1897) public spaces held in trust Hague v. CIO (1939)--the door opens, “no arbitrary suppression of free expression”, govt. does not have unlimited power to regulate expression in public fora

Schneider v. State, (1939) + 3 others 3 important elements cities can regulate door-to-door speech, but must be reasonable littering is an insufficient justification for limiting speech look to alternatives (less restrictive means) Cantwell v. Connecticut (1940)--preventing fraudulent solicitation for a religion does not justify a licensing system

Contemporary TPM Tests the restrictions are justified without reference to the content of the regulated speech--the content neutrality test the restrictions are narrowly tailored to serve a significant government interest--the least restrictive means test, does it further the govt. interest, is the interest significant or substantial? the restrictions leave open ample alternative channels for communication of the information-- how much (and a what price) is acceptable, what if the medium is the message?

TPM Restrictions in Use What’s protected? demonstrations where the assembly meets marching in the streets airports What’s not protected? Courthouses/jailhouses blocking entrances to govt. buildings schools in session military bases mass transit advertising residential picketing