Imagine, fires flaming, outside of homes, bullets breaking through the air, and riots roaring up and down city streets. The United States of America turned upside down because First Amendment restrictions ceased to exist. Regulations including time, place, and manner, keep our country from causing absolute chaos. In America, time, place, and manner are three key elements to success as a culture. Most of everything accepted in society is done in a specific time, place, and mode, even the way we communicate. Time, place, and manner restrictions are placed under strict guidelines. The concern is never to silence speakers but to regulate the mode of expression, unlike other restrictions. A great example of a content neutral time, place, and manner
…show more content…
Because time, place, and manner laws are content neutral, protesters are allowed other open channels of communication (Gale). Time, place, and manner laws are placed solely to strike a balance between assembly and safety. To achieve a balance these laws must be specific. For example, time, place, and manner laws apply to all groups and never a single one. In addition, laws will use phrases such as “twenty-five or more” instead of “large groups” when deciding how generous a protest can grow (Gale). Even though most protests occur on public property there has to be a way to control them. Protesters are restricted from camping in certain places due to safety reasons. Numerous cities might have protest restrictions altogether to prevent disruption. Disturbingly loud protests and disorderly conduct violate time, place, and manner laws as well. As a matter of fact, these restrictions on assembly are for the safety of all American …show more content…
However, counter claims do exist. Mistakes are inevitable, although it is more important to consider whether a law was put in place for a legitimate reason or not. Controversial examples of time, place, and manner laws are designated free speech zones in universities. Students are limited to very small public areas on campus to protest and assemble (Harris). Similar to this subject is The University of Cincinnati v. FIRE case. The school had a policy requiring approval for an assembly two weeks prior to the event, as well as designated free speech zones (Harris). The problem with these restrictions is that most peaceful assemblies are spontaneous, and making students wait to protest can greatly diminish the impact of the message. There must be some allowance for unscheduled protests. Samantha Harris, a member of FIRE, explains that these restrictions are offensive to the “free society”, and that an everyday citizen does not need approval to speak their mind. The school also required that if subjects are eloquently controversial, students must pay in advance for any damage caused to property (Harris). Although the school may see this as a safety concern, these restrictions are mistaken for prior restraint in the public eye. Students should not have to ask nor pay to speak, when no danger has been caused beforehand. After losing the case, The University of Cincinnati dropped the regulations (Harris).
Because time, place, and manner laws are content neutral, protesters are allowed other open channels of communication (Gale). Time, place, and manner laws are placed solely to strike a balance between assembly and safety. To achieve a balance these laws must be specific. For example, time, place, and manner laws apply to all groups and never a single one. In addition, laws will use phrases such as “twenty-five or more” instead of “large groups” when deciding how generous a protest can grow (Gale). Even though most protests occur on public property there has to be a way to control them. Protesters are restricted from camping in certain places due to safety reasons. Numerous cities might have protest restrictions altogether to prevent disruption. Disturbingly loud protests and disorderly conduct violate time, place, and manner laws as well. As a matter of fact, these restrictions on assembly are for the safety of all American …show more content…
However, counter claims do exist. Mistakes are inevitable, although it is more important to consider whether a law was put in place for a legitimate reason or not. Controversial examples of time, place, and manner laws are designated free speech zones in universities. Students are limited to very small public areas on campus to protest and assemble (Harris). Similar to this subject is The University of Cincinnati v. FIRE case. The school had a policy requiring approval for an assembly two weeks prior to the event, as well as designated free speech zones (Harris). The problem with these restrictions is that most peaceful assemblies are spontaneous, and making students wait to protest can greatly diminish the impact of the message. There must be some allowance for unscheduled protests. Samantha Harris, a member of FIRE, explains that these restrictions are offensive to the “free society”, and that an everyday citizen does not need approval to speak their mind. The school also required that if subjects are eloquently controversial, students must pay in advance for any damage caused to property (Harris). Although the school may see this as a safety concern, these restrictions are mistaken for prior restraint in the public eye. Students should not have to ask nor pay to speak, when no danger has been caused beforehand. After losing the case, The University of Cincinnati dropped the regulations (Harris).