First Amendment Rights
Professor Harpaz
Expanded Grading Sheet

New Year's Day Celebration Review Question (total points - 50)
W is used to identify an argument that WHOA would make. PD is used to indicate an argument the Springdale Parks Department would make.

 Argument
Maximum Points
Nature of speech-W argues speech in leaflets is fully protected political speech and argues as to tattoos if not fully protected speech then symbolic sp under Spence test - intent to communicate message and likely to be understood in circumstances - in light of design, literature, carriages w/horses at Celebration

4 points
Public Forum (PF) - W argues Grandview Park is trad’l PF that must be open for expression or if not trad’l PF - Kennedy forum - phys characteristics like streets and parks; open to public; compatible with expression - apply standard to facts

4 points
PF - W argues if not trad’l or Kennedy PF - Celebration is a designated PF by making booths available to groups for purposes of private expression (like state fair in Heffron) - policy and practice, booths compatible w/expression
3 points
W argues even if limited PF, W has satisfied the reqs of participation - literature and temp tatoos for kids, so falls within limits of forum
2 points
W argues even if limited PF and doesn’t fall within limits or if nonpublic forum, must be reasonable in light of nature of forum and not based on viewpoint; here W excluded based on viewpoint (just like in earlier cases where groups with controversial messages were excluded) - if supported carriage rides would be allowed - and therefore must satisfy strict scrutiny review
3 points
PD argues Celebration is government speech - city sponsored event with the city’s required message the only one - like Summum; but W argues forum for private speakers not gov't speech

3 points
PD argues if not gov’t speech then immune from PF doctrine because like Forbes - necessary to make content/viewpt based decisions to reflect nature of Celebration; W argues no immunity as to booths

3 points
PD argues if PF doctrine applies, nonpublic forum because purpose of celebration is not to create forum for expression, but to celebrate the New Year, no practice of allowing all groups to rent booths given past exclusions 3 points
PD argues even if designated PF, it is a limited designated PF and W didn’t satisfy limits, so Celebration is a nonpublic forum as to W
2 points
PD - if nonpublic forum, exclusion of W need only be reasonable in light of nature of forum & not based on viewpt - satisfies standard because only needs to be light hearted, not limited to particular subjects or views on those subjects
3 points
O’Brien Test - W argues fails test because purpose is to suppress W’s message - so must satisfy strict scrutiny; PD argues purpose is not to suppress expression but to celebrate New Year’s, sub’l interest unrelated to suppression of expression, narrowly tailored - allow many community groups with limited exceptions to preserve nature of Celebration
5 points
Reasonable Time, Place, Manner Regulation - W argues exclusion is based on content of message deemed unsuitable for Celebration, doesn’t leave open ample alts because not allowed to communicate its message at Celebration; PD argues content neutral because no motive to suppress particular message just keep celebration light hearted, imp interest in maintaining positive mood of citizens, narrowly tailored - speech on all topics and views allowed if presented in appropriate manner, ample alts
5 points
Strict Scrutiny - W argues can’t satisfy strict scrutiny - no compelling interest in helping city residents start the New Year with light heart-not least restrictive alternative means to accomplish objective - could require disclaimer that doesn’t reflect views of city; PD argues if test applies because content-based, compelling interest in improving attitude of its citizens, narrowly tailored - limit to lighthearted, otherwise speech on all topics and views allowed

5 points
Prior Restraint - need city permission to rent a booth - is it standardless, does it leave too much discretion - PD argues it has sufficiently clear standards, W argues standards are subjective and vague and leave too much discretion with city

3 points
Miscellaneous
2 points