Laserfiche WebLink
113 S. Ct. 1505 <br />123 L. Ed.2d 99, 61 USLW 4272, 21 Media L. Rep. 1161 <br />(Cite as: 507 U.S. 410, 113 S.Ct. 1505) <br />< KeyCite Yellow Flag > <br /> <br />Page 1 <br /> <br />Supreme Court of the United States <br /> <br />92k90.2 Most Cited Cases <br /> <br /> CITY OF CINCINNATI, Petitioner, <br /> V. <br />DISCOVERY NETWORK, INC., et al. <br /> <br />No. 91-1200. <br /> <br />Argued Nov. 9, 1992. <br />Decided March 24, 1993. <br /> <br />Commercial publishers brought civil rights <br />action, requesting declaratory and injunctive <br />relief against enforcement of city ordinance <br />prohibiting distribution of "commercial <br />handbills" on public property, used as basis of <br />ordering removal of news racks. The United <br />States District Court for the Southern District <br />of Ohio, S. Arthur Spiegel, J., entered <br />judgment preventing enforcement of <br />ordinance, and City appealed. The Court of <br />Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, 946 F.2d 464, <br />affirmed. Certiorari was granted. The <br />United States Supreme Court, Justice <br />Stevens, held that: (1) ban on news racks <br />containing "commercial handbills," which did <br />not apply to news racks containing <br />"newspapers" was not a "reasonable fit" <br />between city's legitimate interest in safety <br />and esthetics and means chosen to serve <br />interest, and (2) enforcement did not constitute <br />a valid time, place, and manner restriction of <br />protected speech, as it was not content- <br />neutral. <br /> <br />Affirmed. <br /> <br />Justice Blackmun concurred and filed <br />opinion. <br /> <br />City seeking to enforce ban on news racks <br />dispensing commercial handbills had burden <br />of establishing "reasonable fit" between its <br />legitimate interest in safety and esthetics and <br />its choice of means to serve interests. <br />U.S.C.A. Const. Amend. 1. <br /> <br />[2] Constitutional Law ~=: 90.1(8) <br />92k90.1(8) Most Cited Cases <br /> <br />City seeking to enforce ban on news racks <br />used for distribution of magazines deemed to <br />be "commercial handbills" had not established <br />necessary "reasonable fit" between its <br />legitimate interest in safety and esthetics and <br />its choice of means to serve interest; removal <br />of 62 news racks would leave untouched 1,500 <br />to 2,000 similar news racks used for <br />distribution of "newspapers" deemed to <br />involve noncommercial speech entitled to <br />higher level of First Amendment protection, <br />even though remaining news racks would <br />produce same esthetic and safety problems <br />posed by the ones which would be removed. <br />U.S.C.A. Const. Amend. 1. <br /> <br />[3] Constitutional Law ~=: 90.2 <br />92k90.2 Most Cited Cases <br /> <br />Restrictions on commercial speech are not to <br />be judged on whether they represent the <br />"least-restrictive-means" of achieving <br />governmental objective, nor on the basis of <br />whether such restrictions have a "rational <br />basis"; regulatien need not be absolutely least <br />severe that could achieve desired end. <br />U.S.C.A. Const. Amend. 1. <br /> <br />Chief Justice Rehnquist dissented and filed <br />opinion, in which Justices White and Thomas <br />joined. <br /> <br />West Headnotes <br /> <br />[1] Constitutional Law ~=~ 90.1(8) <br />92k90.1(8) Most Cited Cases <br /> <br />[4] Constitutional Law ~=~ 90.2 <br />92k90.2 Most Cited Cases <br /> <br />Interest in preventing commercial harms <br />justifies more intensive regulation of <br />commercia! speech than noncommercial <br />speech, even when they are intermingled in <br />same publications. <br /> <br />[1] Constitutional Law ~ 90.2 <br /> <br />[5] Constitutional Law ~=~ 90.1(4) <br /> <br />Copr. © West 2001 No Claim to <br /> <br />Orig. U.S. Govt. Works <br /> <br /> <br />