Time, place and manner restrictions are content-neutral limitations imposed by the government on expressive activity. Such restrictions come in many forms, such as imposing limits on the noise level of speech, capping the number of protesters who may occupy a given forum, barring early-morning or late-evening demonstrations, and restricting the size or placement of signs on government property. Such regulations are frequently upheld and represent a common part of the regulatory landscape in most cities and counties. In this photo, a protestor pokes fun at protest signs. Regulations about the size and placement of such signs are content-neutral limitations frequently upheld in courts. (Image via Wikimedia Commons, CC BY 3.0)
Time, place and manner restrictions are content-neutral limitations imposed by the government on expressive activity.
Such restrictions come in many forms, such as
- imposing limits on the noise level of speech,
- capping the number of protesters who may occupy a given forum,
- barring early-morning or late-evening demonstrations, and
- restricting the size or placement of signs on government property.
Such regulations orlicensing lawsthat require parade or demonstration permits are frequently upheld and represent a common part of the regulatory landscape in most cities and counties.
Restrictions can survive First Amendment challenge under a 3-prong test
To survive First Amendment constitutional challenges, such restrictions must satisfy a three-prong test outlined by the Supreme Court in Ward v. Rock Against Racism (1989).
- The regulation must be content neutral.
- It must be narrowly tailored to serve a significant governmental interest.
- It must leave open ample alternative channels for communicating the speaker’s message.
Restriction based on subject matter is not content-neutral
The first prong, requiring content neutrality, will be violated by any regulation that describes permissible expression in terms of its subject matter.
Police Department of Chicago v. Mosley (1972) provides an example of a time, place and manner regulation that failed the content-neutrality requirement. In Mosley an ordinance prohibited all picketing within 150 feet of any school building while classes were in session. However, picketing was allowed if the school was involved in a labor dispute.
Writing for the Court, Justice Thurgood Marshall observed that the ordinance “describes impermissible picketing not in terms of time, place, and manner, but in terms of subject matter. The regulation thus slips from the neutrality of time, place, and circumstance into a concern about content. This is never permitted.”
Mosley does not exemplify the only way that a speech restriction can violate the content-neutrality requirement. Even if the regulation does not, as in Mosley, expressly discriminate on the basis of subject matter, it can run afoul of the content-neutrality requirement if the circumstances surrounding its enactment or the history of its enforcement reveal a governmental intent to favor or punish particular messages.
Speech restrictions will be deemed content neutral, even if they impinge more severely on a particular speaker or message, so long as the government can credibly justify its regulation as serving purposes that have nothing to do with the content of speech.
Regulation must be narrowly tailored to promote substantial government interest
The second prong of Ward’s three-prong test requires that the regulation must be narrowly tailored to serve a significant governmental interest. This narrow tailoring requirement is not nearly as stringent as its language would suggest. The Supreme Court has stressed that this prong does not require time, place, and manner restrictions to be the least restrictive or least intrusive means of achieving the government’s end.
Instead, according to Ward, the requirement of narrow tailoring is satisfied “so long as the . . . regulation promotes a substantial government interest that would be achieved less effectively absent the regulation.”
This relaxed conception of narrow tailoring is vividly reflected in the case law. Regulations that fail this test invariably feature broad restraints on traditional forms of expressive activity — imposing, for example, sweeping prohibitions on parades, demonstrations, residential picketing, door-to-door leafleting, or public hand billing. The narrow tailoring requirement will certainly be violated by a categorical ban on any of the foregoing methods of expressive conduct. So, for example, an ordinance would violate the narrow tailoring requirement by banning parades anywhere within a city’s central business district on all workdays because it would allow parades only when the downtown streets were bereft of onlookers.
Absent a categorical or substantial ban on a traditional method of expressive activity, courts routinely uphold time, place, and manner restrictions as satisfying the requirement of narrow tailoring.
Speaker must have alternative channels of communication
Under Ward’s third prong, the regulation must leave open ample alternative channels for communicating the speaker’s message.
Two different themes run through the cases that construe this requirement. First, the Supreme Court has shown a “special solicitude” for inexpensive methods of communication. Accordingly, a speech restriction may run afoul of this requirement if it precludes forms of expression that are much less expensive than feasible alternatives. Second, the ample alternative channels requirement most commonly arises when a speaker identifies one particular place as uniquely suited to conveying a message, but the government insists that the speaker take up position in an alternative location.
The basic test for gauging the sufficiency of alternative channels is whether the speaker is afforded a forum that is accessible and where the intended audience is expected to pass.
In performing this analysis, a court should take account of the speaker’s intended audience and the extent to which the chosen location contributes to his or her message. A speech restriction does not leave open ample alternative channels if the speaker is left unable to reach the intended audience.
Court ruled the city did not provide adequate alternative in Million Youth March case
A good example of this is Million Youth March, Inc. v. Safir (S.D.N.Y. 1998), where New York City denied a permit request by the Nation of Islam to hold a massive rally in Harlem, insisting that the rally be held instead on Randall’s Island. Located in the middle of the East River between Manhattan and Queens, Randall’s Island was inaccessible by bus or subway and was virtually uninhabited.
The Nation of Islam brought suit under the First Amendment, challenging the city’s imposition of Randall’s Island as the only permissible site for the rally. In an extensive and instructive three-prong analysis, a federal judge ruled that the city had violated the ample alternative channels requirement.
The court stressed that the Randall’s Island alternative was constitutionally inadequate because it thwarted the plaintiff ’s access to its target audience, the residents of Harlem, and because holding the rally in Harlem was part and parcel of the plaintiff’s message — a message that focused on ways to improve the lives of African Americans.
As the foregoing discussion shows, proper time, place, and manner analysis requires careful attention to each of Ward’s three prongs — and to the particular approach that courts have developed for each of those prongs.
It is important to note that the Ward test governs only time, place, and manner restrictions imposed by legislative bodies.
Court requires "stringent" scrutiny of injunctions that restrict speech
Judicial injunctions that impose content-neutral time, place, and manner restrictions are subject to a heightened form of intermediate scrutiny. Observing that “[i]njunctions . . . carry greater risks of censorship and discriminatory application than do general ordinances,” the Supreme Court held in Madsen v. Women’s Health Center, Inc. (1994) that appellate courts should subject content-neutral injunctions to more “stringent” First Amendment scrutiny than comparable legislation — that “when evaluating a content-neutral injunction, we think that our standard time, place, and manner analysis is not sufficiently rigorous.”
Announcing a new standard of review for judicially imposed time, place, and manner restrictions, the Court wrote,“[w]e must ask instead whether the challenged provisions of the injunction burden no more speech than necessary to serve a significant government interest.” This effectively converts the second prong of Ward into a least restrictive means requirement.
This article was originally published in 2009. Kevin Francis O’Neill is an associate professor at Cleveland-Marshall College of Law where he teaches First Amendment, Evidence, Civil Procedure, and Pretrial Practice. His scholarship focuses on the Speech Clause of the First Amendment. Prior to entering academia, Mr. O’Neill served as the Legal Director for the American Civil Liberties Union of Ohio where he focused special attention on First Amendment issues, reproductive freedom, police misconduct, and government mistreatment of the homeless.
Send Feedback on this article
FAQs
What are the four parts of time place manner restrictions? ›
Rock Against Racism (1989) held that time, place, or manner restrictions must: Be content neutral. Be narrowly tailored. Serve a significant governmental interest.
What are the 3 restrictions to freedom of speech? ›Time, place, and manner. Limitations based on time, place, and manner apply to all speech, regardless of the view expressed. They are generally restrictions that are intended to balance other rights or a legitimate government interest.
What is the purpose of time place and manner restrictions? ›Time, place, and manner (TPM) restrictions accommodate public convenience and promote order by regulating traffic flow, preserving property interests, conserving the environment, and protecting the administration of justice.
What is the time place and manner clause? ›The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.
What is an example of time place and manner? ›Adverbs of manner: Angrily, happily, easily, sadly, rudely, loudly, fluently, greedily, etc. Adverbs of Place: Near, there, here, somewhere, inside, outside, ahead, top, high, bottom, etc. Adverbs of time: Now, then, Today, yesterday, tomorrow, late, early, tonight, again, soon etc.
What are time place and manner restrictions quizlet? ›What is a time, manner, or place restriction? Just what is says, it's a restriction on the timing of free speech, the manner of the speech, and/or the place of the speech. It's (generally) NOT A DIRECT RESTRICTION ON SPEECH and therefore is content neutral (subject matter and view point).
What are the 4 limits on free speech and press? ›"The categories of speech that fall outside of its protection are obscenity, child pornography, defamation, incitement to violence and true threats of violence," he explains.
What are the 3 freedoms? ›Three primordial freedoms, those which for most of human history were simply assumed: the freedom to move. the freedom to disobey. the freedom to create or transform social relationships.
What are the 5 freedom of speech? ›The five freedoms it protects: speech, religion, press, assembly, and the right to petition the government. Together, these five guaranteed freedoms make the people of the United States of America the freest in the world.
What is content neutral time place and manner restrictions? ›Content neutral refers to laws that apply to all expression without regard to the substance or message of the expression. Such laws generally regulate only the time, place, and manner of speech in contrast to content-based laws, which regulate speech based on content.
What case established time place and manner restrictions? ›
Facts and case summary for Cox v. New Hampshire, 312 U.S. 569 (1941). Reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions on speech are constitutionally permissible.
What are 5 limitations of freedom of speech? ›Second, a few narrow categories of speech are not protected from government restrictions. The main such categories are incitement, defamation, fraud, obscenity, child pornography, fighting words, and threats.
Are time place and manner restrictions unconstitutional? ›The First Amendment requires that the government not discriminate against particular viewpoints. The Supreme Court has, however, upheld the idea that speech may be regulated under “Time, Place, and Manner” regulations.
What is a clause of manner? ›An adverbial clause of manner describes how the action described in the sentence's main clause is taking place or previously took place. Here are a few examples: She addressed the crowd as she had practiced in the mirror.
What are the time place and manner limits that the government can put on freedom of assembly? ›The First Amendment protects peaceful, not violent, assembly. However, there must a “clear and present danger” or an “imminent incitement of lawlessness” before government officials may restrict free-assembly rights.
What is time place and manner in a sentence structure? ›When there is more than one of the three types of adverb together, they usually go in the order: manner, place, time: You start off [manner]slowly [time]in the beginning. Not: You start off in the beginning slowly. James played [manner] [place]brilliantly in the match on [time]Saturday.
What are the 10 examples of adverb of manner? ›Tactfully, knowingly, sadly, happily, seriously, perfectly, meticulously, mercilessly, gracefully, boldly, painfully, unexpectedly, etc. are some examples of adverbs of manner.
What is the order of time and place in a sentence? ›Subject + Verb + Object + Adverb Of Place + Adverb Of Time
An important thing to realize is that the time usually comes after the place. Hence the adverb of the place is kept before the adverb of time.
What time, place, and manner restrictions may be placed on free speech in our Democracy? Towns and cities may require citizens to obtain permits to hold a march ;to use soundtracks; or to stage protests in parks, streets or other public property.
Can the government impose legitimate time place and manner restrictions on expression? ›Government can limit some protected speech by imposing "time, place and manner" restrictions. This is most commonly done by requiring permits for meetings, rallies and demonstrations. But a permit cannot be unreasonably withheld, nor can it be denied based on content of the speech.
What is the difference between the types of restrictions that can be placed upon the establishment versus the free exercise clauses of the First Amendment? ›
The free exercise clause protects the religious beliefs, and to a certain extent, the religious practices of all citizens. The more controversial establishment clause prohibits the government from endorsing, supporting, or becoming too involved in religion and religious activities.
What is violation of freedom of speech? ›What types of speech are completely unprotected by the First Amendment? Certain categories of speech are completely unprotected by the First Amendment. That list includes (i) child pornography, (ii) obscenity, and (iii) “fighting words” or “true threats.”
What types of speech are not protected? ›- Child pornography. Child pornography is not protected by the First Amendment.
- Commercial speech. ...
- Blackmail. ...
- Defamation. ...
- Fighting words. ...
- Incitement of imminent lawless action. ...
- National security. ...
- Obscenity.
The restriction mentioned are defamation, contempt of the court, decency or morality, security of the state, friendly relationship between India with other country, incitement for an offence, public order and maintenance of the sovereignty and integrity of India.
What are the 4 fundamental freedoms? ›Fundamental Freedoms
(a) freedom of conscience and religion; (b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication; (c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and. (d) freedom of association.
- Freedom of speech.
- Freedom of worship.
- Freedom from want.
- Freedom from fear.
These include the freedom of speech and expression, freedom of assembly without arms, freedom of association, freedom of movement throughout the territory of our country, freedom to reside and settle in any part of the country of India and the freedom to practice any profession.
What is the difference between content based and content neutral restrictions? ›A content-based law or regulation discriminates against speech based on the substance of what it communicates. In contrast, a content-neutral law applies to expression without regard to its substance. The Supreme Court is likely to strike down regulations that discriminate on the basis of what is said or expressed.
Are time place and manner restrictions intermediate scrutiny? ›It applies to time, place, and manner restrictions on speech, for example, with the additional requirement of "adequate alternative channels of communication." In other words, if restricting the time, place, or manner of speech means that speech cannot take place at all, the regulation fails intermediate scrutiny.
What does it mean when it is stated that government rules must be content neutral? ›THE CONSTITUTION'S GUARANTEES
The government's rules must be content neutral. They can place restrictions on the basis of the time, place, and manner of the assembly, but not on what the assembly is trying to say.
What is the court's three part test for determining the constitutionality of time place or manner restrictions that limit the use of public forums to disseminate messages? ›
The requirements for time, place, and manner regulations in a public forum are that they must be content-neutral, be narrowly tailored to serve a significant government interest, and provide alternative channels for communicating the same content.
What are the 1st Amendment restrictions? ›Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Can the federal government may restrict the time place and manner of a large protest so long as the restrictions are? ›Government can regulate the time, place, and manner of protest on public property – but only if the regulations are narrowly tailored to advance an important government interest, and leave open ample alternative channels of communication.
What are the three 3 restrictions to freedom of speech? ›The state may, however, 'limit' the freedom of expression on certain grounds, such as national security, public order, public health, and public morals.
What are the 3 exceptions to freedom of speech? ›Categories of speech that are given lesser or no protection by the First Amendment (and therefore may be restricted) include obscenity, fraud, child pornography, speech integral to illegal conduct, speech that incites imminent lawless action, speech that violates intellectual property law, true threats, and commercial ...
What are 3 things the states are prohibited from doing according to the 14th Amendment clause 1? ›Section 1 Rights
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
He swims well. He ran quickly. She spoke softly. James coughed loudly to attract her attention.
What are the 7 types of clauses? ›- Independent Clause.
- Subordinate Clause.
- Adjective Clause.
- Adverbial Clause.
- Noun Clause.
- Relative Clause.
- Conditional Clause.
- Independent or Main.
- Dependent or Subordinate.
- Relative or Adjective.
- Noun Clause.
- Adverbial Clause.
- Conditional Clause.
The First Amendment requires that the government not discriminate against particular viewpoints. The Supreme Court has, however, upheld the idea that speech may be regulated under “Time, Place, and Manner” regulations.
What are the restrictions of a protest? ›
You don't need a permit to march in the streets or on sidewalks, as long as marchers don't obstruct car or pedestrian traffic. If you don't have a permit, police officers can ask you to move to the side of a street or sidewalk to let others pass or for safety reasons. Certain types of events may require permits.
What are the restrictions on free speech? ›Government can limit some protected speech by imposing "time, place and manner" restrictions. This is most commonly done by requiring permits for meetings, rallies and demonstrations. But a permit cannot be unreasonably withheld, nor can it be denied based on content of the speech.
What are the time place and manner limits that government can put on freedom of assembly? ›The First Amendment protects peaceful, not violent, assembly. However, there must a “clear and present danger” or an “imminent incitement of lawlessness” before government officials may restrict free-assembly rights.
What are protesters not allowed to do? ›You may not:
Block access to sidewalks or buildings. March in the streets without a permit. Disrupt counter-protests. Engage in speech that is obscene, makes knowingly false statements of fact, or that is likely to incite an immediate disruptive or dangerous disturbance.
Marching, where groups of people walk together through the streets. Their destination may be a rally or picket. Rallies, where people gather at a location to hear speakers. Pickets and sit-ins, where people surround, occupy or block off an area.
What types of restrictions does the First Amendment place on protesters? ›Time, place and manner restrictions are content-neutral limitations imposed by the government on expressive activity. restricting the size or placement of signs on government property.
What are 2 restrictions on freedom of speech? ›Freedom of speech does not include the right:
To incite imminent lawless action. Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969). To make or distribute obscene materials.
The categories of unprotected speech include obscenity, child pornography, defamatory speech, false advertising, true threats, and fighting words. Deciding what is and is not protected speech is reserved to courts of law. The First Amendment only prevents government restrictions on speech.
What are two examples of restrictions the government can place on the freedom to assemble? ›Protests That Pose Public Safety Threats
Violence or the threat of violence isn't the only limit on the right of assembly. Authorities may also prevent or stop gatherings that pose other immediate threats to public safety. Police routinely arrest protesters who block traffic on freeways or bridges.
Genocide, crimes against humanity, slavery, and torture are simply international crimes, which are prohibited and can be individually punished by any state wherever the acts were committed.