American Constitutionalism in Historical Perspective (packet)

Marshall dissents, believes there is no adequate alt forum, so by cutting off symbolic speech here, effectively banning their speech.

Ward v. Rock Against Racism, 1989: upholds reg mandating use of city-provided sound systems to control volume of concerts in Central Park. Traditional public forum (open to public, purpose consistent, alt. forum for minority), narrowly tailored to constitutional privacy issues of neighbors.Dissent: believes that narrowly tailored means is equivalent of least restrictive alternatives. Wants to extend audience.

Abortion Protests

1. 
   Frisbee v. Shultz, 1988: upheld community reg banning residential picketing b/c it d/n didn’t prohibit all residential picketing, only picketing that targeted a particular residenceà very narrow construction. Had compelling interests in the safety and privacy of residents and the fact that they were captive audiences. This case was involved a focused protest of abortion doctor’s home.
   
2. 
   Madsen v. Women’s Health Center, 1994: Case involving pro-life demonstrators in front of abortion clinic. Struck down reg forbidding use of images on perimeter of clinic and 300 ft zone but allowed restrictions on buffer zone and noise levels. Heightened scrutiny to TMP reg b/c it deals with 2 great constitutional rts: privacy of woman to have an abortion without being intimidated v. right of demonstrators to free speech
   
   1. 
      Ordinance provisions:
      
      1. 
         Buffer zone at entrance and driveway is valid: safety and privacy
         
      2. 
         Limit on noise level is valid: safety of surgeries
         
      3. 
         Prohibition on images not valid: can avert eyes
         
      4. 
         Refraining from approaching woman is valid: safety and privacy
         
      5. 
         No picketing within 300 ft. is invalid: greater than necessary
         
3. 
   Schenk: (1997) p. 1260. 1^st A challenge to injunction against protestors outside an abortion clinic. Struck down floating buffer zone b/c burdens speech more than necessary (c/n protest w/in 15 ft of any person or vehicle seeking access to or leaving such facilities). Upheld fixed buffer zone (c/n protest w/in 15 ft of doorways, bldng, parking lot, driveways, etc).
   
4. 
   Hill v. Colorado: (2000) p. 1261 upheld law limiting speech of abortion protestors outside of abortion clinics. Statute prohibited someone w/in vicinity of health care facility to knowingly approach w/in 8 ft of another person, w/out that person’s consent, for the purpose of passing out a leaflet, displaying a sign to or engaging in oral protest, etc. 8 ft. is not too great a burden (unlike 15 ft?) Majority says content-neutral (justified by access and privacy interests and protests have adequate alt means to get their msg across) but dissent d/n agree and denied that citizens have a rt to avoid unpopular speech in a public forum