Citation. 491 U.S. 781, 109 S. Ct. 2746, 105 L. Ed. 2d 661, 1989 U.S.
Law Students: Don’t know your Studybuddy Pro login? Register here Brief Fact Summary.
Pock Against Racism (Respondent) is a sponsor of a rock concert who challenges New York City’s restriction on the volume of performances on Central Park.
Synopsis of Rule of Law.
Government regulation of a public forum does not have to be the least restrictive alternative.
Facts.
Central Park contains an amphitheatre that is next to Central Park West and a quiet relaxation area of the park, Sheep Meadow. In an effort to maintain the quietness of the area, the city has imposed a restriction on all performances to use specified amplification equipment and staff provided by the city.
Issue.
Is the city’s restriction of amplification equipment Constitutionally valid?
Held.
Yes. This is a proper time, place, manner restriction that does not discriminate based on content.
Dissent.
This regulation is not narrowly tailored and the majority has abandoned the requirement that a regulation be the least intrusive means of achieving the goal of quiet.
Discussion.
The city has a legitimate interest in keeping the sound from permeating the surrounding residential and other quiet areas. A content-neutral restriction does not need to be the least restrictive manner of accomplishing a goal. But, it must still be narrowly drawn and not substantially burden the speech. Volume control is not a burden on speech.
