City of Springfield v. Kellim

“[T]he government may impose reasonable restrictions on the time, place, or manner of protected speech, provided the restrictions are justified without reference to the content of the regulated speech, that they are narrowly tailored to serve a significant governmental interest, and that they leave open ample alternative channels for communication of the information.” Ward v. Rock Against Racism, 491 US 781, 791 (1989).

Defendant appealed a conviction for two noise ordinance violations. Defendant assigned error to the trial court's denial of his request for acquittal and argued the ordinance: (1) is content-based and violates both the Oregon and U.S. Constitutions; (2) violates his First Amendment right to free speech as applied to him; (3) is constitutionally void for vagueness; and (4) is unconstitutionally overbroad. “[T]he government may impose reasonable restrictions on the time, place, or manner of protected speech, provided the restrictions are justified without reference to the content of the regulated speech, that they are narrowly tailored to serve a significant governmental interest, and that they leave open ample alternative channels for communication of the information.” Ward v. Rock Against Racism, 491 US 781, 791 (1989). The Court rejected all of Defendant’s arguments. Firstly, the Court found that the ordinance was not content-based, but directed at noncommunicative elements such as noise amplification. Secondly, applying a strict scrutiny analysis, the ordinance does not violate any First Amendment rights because the City has an interest in regulating unreasonable noise, and the ordinance is narrowly tailored to achieve that interest. Thirdly, the ordinance is clear and specific in application to Defendant’s conduct and can be easily understood by citizens. Lastly, the ordinance is not overbroad because it reasonably regulates noise amplification and is a “valid time, place, and manner regulation.” AFFIRMED.