Time, place, and manner regulations
Time, place, and manner regulations refer to permissible restrictions on expression that do not relate to the content of that expression. These regulations are significant in determining how and when expressive activities can occur, particularly in relation to the First Amendment rights in the United States. The Supreme Court evaluates these regulations based on the forum in which the expression takes place, with traditional public forums—such as parks and sidewalks—affording the highest level of protection.
For a regulation to be considered valid, it must meet four criteria: it must be content neutral, serve a significant governmental interest, be narrowly tailored, and provide alternative means for expression. Different types of public and private spaces have varying levels of protection and permissible regulations. For example, activities in designated public forums are more subject to restrictions than those in traditional public forums. Conversely, private property owners have more control over expressive activities on their premises.
Challenges arise when these regulations are applied to commercial or religious speech, as well as to speech that may be deemed obscene or indecent, where the Court often deems such restrictions invalid due to their content-based nature. The application of these regulations aims to balance the rights of free expression with the need for order and safety in public spaces.
Time, place, and manner regulations
Description: Permissible forms of prior restraint not based on content of expression that regulate when, where, and how expression may occur freely.
Relevant amendment: First
Significance: The Supreme Court usually considers the validity of time, place, and manner regulations in view of the forum in which the regulations are applied. Expressive activity occurring in a public, rather than private, forum receives the highest First Amendment protection.
In Heffron v. International Society for Krishna Consciousness (1981), Supreme Court Justice Byron R. White identified four characteristics of a valid time, place, and manner regulation: first, the restriction must be content neutral; second, the restriction must serve a significant governmental interest; third, the restriction must be no broader than would accomplish its purpose; and fourth, alternative means must exist to communicate the expression that is limited by the regulation. All four of the characteristics must be present for the regulation to be valid.
Time, Place, and Manner
The Court has allowed to stand ordinances that restrict loud noises at night when people are likely to be asleep and broadcast regulations that restrict indecent programming to safe harbor hours, between 10 p.m. and 6 a.m., when children are less likely to be in the audience.
The Court makes decisions regarding place according to the forum in which an activity occurs: a traditional public forum, a designated public forum, public property that is not a public forum, or private property. Traditional public forums are places that are accepted as sites where speeches may be made and people may assemble. Examples include public parks, street corners, and sidewalks. Speeches occurring in traditional public forums receive the highest First Amendment protection. In Lovell v. City of Griffin(1938), the Court made it clear that public streets are public forums. The city of Griffin, Georgia, had an ordinance requiring written permission from the city manager before distributing information in any form. The city argued that First Amendment protection applied to only the publication of information, not its distribution, but Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes refuted that argument in the opinion he wrote for the Court.
Designated public forums are places specifically provided by the government for communication, assembly, and similar uses. These include government-owned auditoriums, meeting halls, fairgrounds, and student newspapers open to all students. Communication occurring in designated public forums receives First Amendment protection, but not as much as that occurring in traditional public forums; therefore, it is more subject to time, place, and manner regulations.
Some types of public property are not considered public forums and are closed to expressive activity on the part of the general public. Examples include airport concourses, prisons, and military bases. Private property is not a public forum; owners may decide who uses the property for expressive activity.
In Grayned v. Rockford (1972), the Court applied time, place, and manner regulations to demonstrations next to a school in session, saying the nature of the place, including the pattern of its typical activities, dictates the kinds of regulations of time, place, and manner that are reasonable. In its decision, the Court indicated that silent expression in a public library might be appropriate, although making a speech in the area where patrons are reading would not be. The manner of expression should be compatible with the normal activity of a particular place at a particular time.
Problems in Application
When time, place, and manner regulations were applied to commercial or religious speech (Metromedia v. San Diego, 1981) or obscene or indecent language, the Court generally found these restrictions invalid because they were content based. The same line of reasoning was used to invalidate the Communication Decency Act of 1996 (Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 1996). The Court generally frowns on ordinances that rely on the discretion of community officials to decide whether speech is allowed (Schneider v. New Jersey, 1939) because these deliberations often require officials to evaluate speech based on content.
In Madsen v. Women’s Health Center (1994), the Court applied the third prong of the 1981 validity test in considering whether an injunction directed at protesters at an abortion clinic was narrowly tailored enough to accomplish its goals without restricting more expression than necessary. The Court decided that a 36-foot buffer zone around clinic entrances and a driveway was permissible and not over broad, but that a 300-foot buffer zone around the residences of clinic employees and a 300-foot no-approach zone around the clinic were over broad, and therefore impermissible.
2024 Columbia Protests
On October 7, 2023, Hamas, an acknowledged terror organization conducted a devastating surprise attack on Israel. Isreal responded with a ground and air campaign that killed tens of thousands of Gaza-Palestinians. In the United States, passionate opinions soon flared in support of both sides of the conflict as the Israel-Hamas hostilities precipitated protests across many US college campus.
A notable protest occurred at Colombia University in New York City in the spring of 2024. Pro-Palestinian protesters erected an encampment on university property and used it as a centralized location for their demonstrations. Amid the protests were allegations of intimidation of Israeli and Jewish students.
Most affirmed the First Amendment rights of the primarily student Columbia protestors. The First Amendment, nonetheless, placed restrictions on free speech as it allowed University officials latitude to determine aspects of the time, place, and manner of the protests. This was necessary to enable the university's responsibilities to provide a safe learning environment for its students.
In May 2024, acting on a request by Colombia's then-president Nemat Shafik, New York City police officers forcibly removed a college encampment used by protestors, leading to the arrest of over 100 demonstrators.
Bibliography
Blinder, Alan, and Sharon Otterman. "Columbia President Resigns After Months of Turmoil on Campus." New York Times, 14 Aug. 2024, www.nytimes.com/2024/08/14/us/columbia-president-nemat-shafik-resigns.html. Accessed 3 Sept. 2024.
Gillmor, Donald, Jerome Barron, and Todd Simon. Mass Communication Law: Cases and Comment. 6th ed. Belmont, Calif.: Wadsworth, 1998.
Offenhartz, Jake. "As Students Return to Columbia, the Epicenter of a Campus Protest Movement Braces for Disruption." AP News, 3 Sept. 2024, apnews.com/article/columbia-university-propalestinian-gaza-protests-980e22266c6a6d1c86b670a3d6be655a. Accessed 3 Sept. 2024.
Pember, Don. Mass Media Law. Boston: McGraw-Hill, 1999.
"Police Clear Building at Columbia and Arrest Dozens of Protesters." New York Times, 7 May 2024, www.nytimes.com/live/2024/04/30/nyregion/columbia-protests-college. Accessed 3 Sept. 2024.
Teeter, Dwight, Don Leduc, and Bill Loving. Law of Mass Communications: Freedom and Control of Print and Broadcast Media. 9th ed. New York: Foundation Press, 1998.