The Supreme Court has set up guidelines to evaluate restrictions by the government on the use of public places. These public places are mainly used for communication hence speeches are a common element. One consideration made on the use of public places is on its connection to unlawful behavior like violence, trespass or chaotic conduct (Schofield n.p). The court allows the government to regulate the use of public places like streets by protestors on the grounds of interests like of protecting public order, accommodating compromising needs of potential users of the same location, and protecting uninterested onlookers (such as the location’s residents) from the negative effects of speeches (Schofield n.p). These factors are applied by ensuring implementation of processes like permit requirements and provision of protection by law enforcement groups like the police (Schofield n.p).
The court also considers the need for the government’s restrictions to be content-neutral. It requires that they should also leave alternative communication channels and fulfill a substantial government interest (Schofield n.p). As an application of this factor, the court requires that the government should not prohibit all categories of expression, like speeches on drug abuse, racism and poverty. Another application is that the court requires the government not to silence those who it opposes and only sanction those it supports (Schofield n.p). The court also considers the government regulation of noise in public places. The Supreme Court in Madsen’s case supported the government injunction to prohibit demonstrators from chanting, yelling, and using sound amplification devices, to prevent noise from reaching the patients in clinics (Schofield n.p).
Public expression and use of public places are upheld in the First Amendment. In the next 10 years, these considerations and factors will change towards favoring the use of public locations for expression than presently. The restrictions such as requirements for fees and permits may become more lax as more civilians, and law enforcement groups will have known the rights enshrined in the First Amendment. The considerations for protection and oversight by law enforcement officers will also be greater to ensure the safer and smooth utilization of public places.
Work cited
Schofield, Daniel. 'First Amendment Implications Of Controlling Public Protest'. Lectlaw.com. N.p., 2014. Web. 24 Oct. 2014.
