4.4. SR 11-13-2001 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

113 S. Ct. 1505 (Cite as: 507 U.S. 410, 113 S.Ct. 1505) Page 2 92k90.1(4) Most Cited Cases [5] Constitutional Law ~=~ 90.1(8) 92k90.1(8) Most Cited Cases [5] Constitutional Law ~=~ 90.2' 92k90.2 Most Cited Cases Order by municipality, that news racks containing "commercial handbillss' be removed from city streets, did not constitute a reasonable time, place, or manner restriction on protected speech; order was not content- neutral, as it did not apply to news racks containing "newspapers." U.S.C.A. Const. Amend. 1. *'1506 Syllabus [FN*] FN* The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See United States v. Detroit Lumber Co., 200 U.S. 321, 337, 26 S.Ct. 282, 287, 50 L.Ed. 499. that the city has not met its burden of establishing a "reasonable fit" between its legitimate interests in safety and esthetics and the means it chose to serve those interests. The ordinance's outdated prohibition of handbill distribution was enacted long before any concern about newsracks developed, for the apparent purpose of preventing the kind of visual blight caused by littering, rather than any harm associated with permanent, freestanding dispensing devices. The fact that the city failed to address its recently developed concern about newsracks by regulating their size, shape, appearance, or number indicates that it has not "carefully calculated" the costs and benefits associated with the burden on speech imposed by its prohibition. See Fox, 492 U.S., at 480, 109 S.Ct., at 3035. The lower courts correctly ruled that the benefit to be derived from the removal of 62 newsracks out of a total of 1,500-2,000 on public property was small. Pp. 1509-1511. In 1989, petitioner city authorized respondent companies to place 62 freestanding newsracks on public property for the purpose of distributing free magazines that consisted primarily of advertisements for respondents' services. In 1990, motivated by its interest in the safety and attractive appearance of its streets and sidewalks, the city revoked respondents' permits on the ground that the magazines were "commercial handbill[s]," whose distribution on public property was prohibited by a pre-existing ordinance. In respondents' ensuing lawsuit, the District Court concluded that this categorical ban violated the First Amendment under the "reasonable fit" standard applied to the regulation of commercial speech in Board of Trustees of State University of N.Y.v. Fox, 492 U.S. 469, 109 S. Ct. 3028, 106 L.Ed. 2d 388. The Court of Appeals affirmed. *'1507 Held: The city's selective and categorical ban on the distribution, via newsrack, of "commercial handbills" is not consistent with the dictates of the First Amendment. Pp. 1509-1517. (a) The record amply supports the conclusion (b) The Court rejects the city's argument that, because every decrease in the overall number of newsracks on its sidewalks necessarily effects an increase in safety and an improvement in the attractiveness of the cityscape, there is a close fit between its ban on newsracks '411 dispensing "commercial handbills" and its interests in safety and esthetics. This argument is premised upon the distinction the city has drawn between commercial speech such as respondents', which is viewed as having only a low value, and the assertedly more valuable noncommercial speech of "newspapers," whose distribution on, public land is specifically authorized by separate provisions of the city code. The argument attaches more importance to that distinction than the Court's cases warrant and seriously underestimates the value of commercial speech. Moreover, because commercial and noncommercial publications are equally responsible for the safety concerns and visual blight that motivated the city, the distinction bears no relationship whatsoever to the admittedly legitimate interests asserted by the city and is an impermissible means of responding to those interests. Thus, on this record, the city has Copr. © West 2001 No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works