your honor and please court my name is nate callan and i represent the appellant jeremy stockstill with your stock still comes to the court seeking relief from two festival rules that have been adopted and enforced by the city of picayune one banning litter distribution and the other banning amplification both roles take place in traditional public fora and both pros are unconstitutional for three significant reasons one is that stated interests the reasons that they set out for the basis for enforcing these rules are contract they're invalid they are inadequate the second significant reason why these rules are unconstitutional is because even assuming that some legitimate interest exist picking and fouls to draw a connection between there are two rules that curb speech and any legitimate interest and then the third reason is that the enforcement of these two rules have the effect of severely limiting mr stock still's expression in a traditional public form so for these three reasons the two rules are unconstitutional the first reason dealing with the stated interest that's found on page one twenty four the record on appeal and that's part of chief russian the cheese the chief of picking police department and he sends out really the only evidence that we have in their record regarding the interest the reasons why not pick again is worse judge showmance because there's really not any context for that fast that picture other than that was taken in the past it's not inaccurate i don't believe it is an accurate but i think you just have to consider the context as far as the timing of and  important as the place because what it shows is it shows a picture of where the booths are located and where the buildings are located and where mr starks to want to speech was actually in a wide open area close to the center of the between you have this open area this next to to a park and one sat in a wide open area on the other and this is where mr stark still wanted to be and expresses his views have a designated  now they own it's a free festival there's no mission there's no ticket required and so basically people can go wherever they can find a good parking place and start walking to it and you can literally walk into it from any area there's no financing type of reasons that they state as they say it's for the the comfort and enjoyment of the streets it's for the success of local businesses and community of dance it's for safety and protection it's for  mean how loud was said he he said said it was just a one point to protect his voice from going hoarse but so what does that mean he will speak at a conversational level at what he likes to do c r so much like i am with this wacko phone take a look at either one of these will you take a look at amplification a legitimate interest that and these are actually found cases have been cited by picking would be to curb excessive noise people probably don't even have boom boxes anymore but would this ordinance cover somebody who walked into the festival and played a boom box with some kind of you know speech on it that's a good question  is that it's written so it's somewhat malam all so i don't know that it's clear whether or not it would apply to that or not but but what it does is it is it bans amplification and certainly that would include  stark still is use of an amplifier and it's under any circumstances no matter what the volume level happens to be and i think that's as a constitutional concern because we're talking about a traditional public forum as a public is that what's appropriate is to have some regulation of amplification so that it can deal with excessive noise just like with kovacs versus can deal with loud and rocket noises but a flat band on amplification which was not found in ward is something that is just scriptures it just goes too far because it doesn't even directly and deal with up a volume issue what it deals with is the device itself well it's a clear it's a close question  question it's a narrowly tailored to say serve a compelling interest and where there are alternative avenues of communication and of course we know they had bought a booth in the past actually they  didn't that was something that i think picking was mistaken about mr stocks will never purchased a booth he's never involved in that his church a church that he's involved in and that he happens to go to they have purchased a bit from us as an organization bu didn't they didn't have a booth and so in he can't control what is church does and then also there's there's a good sign of his ability to speak from from above if he still can use amplification even if he has a booth and so the only thing  is the set up as it is really difficult to determine where that would be because it is so wide open and it's where i'm just out of town where we set up in the first volume are going to get to everybody well he's a he's in a pretty good location a judge if you take a look at like the overhead pictures are shown in a record excerpts and then a record where he sets himself up this is actually in the very center of the festival itself so it goes on this one street canal street east to west and so you what you have is you basement people go to the boose or to the west they go to the activities in the paintings it is to the east and there's only really one way to go there and then he has to walk down canal street back and forth and so he places himself in this particular area where he sidewalk outside is basically just limited to people who perhaps park in that area and then he can talk to as they're either going toward the fast for or they're leaving and so it's really a significant difference as far as his ability to record of two things really there's no proof of any concern about congestion there is no there's no proof that's true in any crowd situation that that there's no i mean you can't i mean you have a hard time showing me a case where municipality cannot regulate time place and manner for the eventuality of group gatherings doesn't mean they necessarily can license on but they can certainly have because they don't want people to be conducting riots police there used to be the case and i think it's certainly appropriate to try to deal with iran but the problem here is that they're presuming it's well in some respects i mean there are some similarities in which you have people gathering in a particular place but that's really where the similarities and because have frind what you hand is state fair grounds which are very different from from city referred to that yes sir but that's why i referred to that photo because that that was a very crowded space certainly that was looked like bourbon street on a weekend well it did have some similarities to bourbon street actually where where you were you had like buildings  out there but the issue and this is why it's different from half and half and you actually have been to it for speak when you go into a closed area and when you're in this area for a lot of people that's not true with the picking a street festival because people have these wide and the reason is is because there's a clear distinction between a failure on a situated fair grounds where you have admitted entrance and take it and then where you have a wild open public street festival those are just two very different things or two very different been used and also sometimes very important there's mention of cases as well as a distinction between the type of speech and that is between literate distribution and solicitation and the supr court's recognizes to is that in front of solicitation that's what they were doing they they're part of their religion they want to solicit money and so that involves actual stoppage so you happy people in a closed space where you're actually stopping which could conceivably block the path of people and what the supreme court and what the six in a circle of hell is that that's just not the situation with litter distribution the reason why is because you can hand out a piece of paper and so one can either take it or not please court this is an appeal from requests for what this court has so often called a rare and extraordinary form of from leave because the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying stockstill motion for eliminating junction the district court order should be farmed in this case should be remanded for an adjudication on the merits the starting point is that stock still does not have an absolute right to free speech even in a traditional public forum city  is free to enforce reasonable time place and manner restrictions so long as those restrictions are content neutral narrowly tailored to an important governmental interest and leave open alternative channels for communication the voice amplification and literature distribution restrictions that issue in this case satisfy that criteria it's very significant that there is no dispute in this case over content neutrality page three twenty three of the record stockstill concession on this point of the district court and there is no contrary argument in his appellate brief as we say an arboretum courts have frequently said that the most important part of the first amendment analysis is the neutrality question and that is so because at the heart of the first amendment is no dispute over content neutrality your honor so it's important to point out that there's this is a big distinction in other cases with mr stocks they were last upon the ordinary context that these cases come up is usually you have a gay pride festival and you have an evangelical preacher who wants to distribute literature at the gate for courts very correctly have scrutinized those cases closely for fear that the government is in sorting itself into the culture wars and choosing one message over another message but that's not at all what we have here mr stocks to is free to promote his message just like the other seven churches do at the festival and just like his own church as  so long as he plays by the same rules that apply to everyone equally so because there is no dispute over content neutrality what he focuses heavily on is the second element which is the narrowly tailoring to importing governmental mantras but the red herring in his argument is that he takes the position that picayune is interest can only be important if there is substantial evidence of disruption at past festivals but there is no support for that in supreme court precedent or any of this sort of cases picayune has a right to prevent disruption in future festivals we see this in many first amendment context for example the school speech cases or the retaliation in public employment cases the teaching of all these cases is that the government has a right to prevent potential disruption in the future in other words the city of picking does not have to sit back and wait for something bad to happen before it takes action to protect interests and the interested issue in this place are certainly important ones the most prevailing one being the interest that it has in promoting successful community events the city of picayune is a small town with a population of less than eleven thousand people this street festival brings as many as thirty thousand people to that small town and it's been around for twenty years the the nonprofit organization who puts the festival all its whole purpose for being in existence is to promote the downtown revitalization of the city's piccy so the courts have we articulate other related interests in the in the brief such as the concert enjoyment of people that attend this taxing standard what stock still does it focuses on the second part of that standard which is the narrowly tailoring part but people is to break down what merely tailoring really really means merely tailoring according to ward cannot be confused with the least restrictive means test so the question before the court is not whether picayune has come up with the most effective ways to protect its interests the only question before the court is whether picayune is interest would be less to fake dave if they were not in place now smith to the court but these are certainly effective ways to promote his interests because it's not difficult to imagine what this festival might look like everyone were allowed to do what mr stocks to wants one of the six are cases and one of the eight circuit cases are not not even unanimous panel opinions one of them is in the summary judgment contacts there are there i think they're on faithful to have fraud and they've also been policy issue into this case by saying well picayune interests are under inclusive because they don't address things like solicitation i think you mentioned that while ago but there's two problems with that argument one factual one legal as a factual matter there is no evidence whatsoever in this record that solicitation has ever been permitted at the festival and that's simply his way to try to pigeonhole this case into other cases where it's been a real issue but more importantly as a legal matter in william versus florida bar the supreme court said our quote this that there is no free standing prohibition under the first amendment against under inclusiveness that the government does not have to alleviate all problems in one fell swoop that they have a right to address those problems the most pressing problems as they arrive so those cases or distinguish will he mentions johnson versus minnesota the eighth circuit case that one is particularly telling mr mr kalam actually represent plaintiff in that case and that was a gay pride festival and there was a evangelical plaintiff that wanted to pass out christian literature at that festival but what was going on at the festival there was a booth requirement like there is in this case but they would give the plaintiff a booth like everybody else they said you can have a booth but it's got to be away from everybody else or you can have a drop off location you can put your materials there and people can come and get him and lee well at the organ in that case at about the thirty three minute mark one of the judges that mr kelo may say i don't understand which are which plaintiff is that if he's saying that he's entitled to a booth or booth plus meaning he ought to be able to walk around the facility mr kalam responded and said your honor i'm that he's entitled to the booth but that's the problem in the case they won't give him a booth like everybody else well that's exactly what the plaintiff has been offered in this case is to boot like everybody else so our smith mr kalam got it right the first fourteenth we also have the the width of the streets there they go anywhere from forty feet to sixty feet so this is a very enclosed space that we're talking about the picture of that thing illustrate the kind of crowds that may come to the festival and if you if you look at some of the pictures in the record it says around this railroad track where the plaintiff asserts that he wants to stay and you'll see that the it's not like this is some area way from the the booth or in very close proximity obviously they can't be on top of the railroad tracks but they're still very very close what this really boils down to is that mr stock's dale wants to put his interests above the interests of the festival and everyone else that attends a festival and that's not at all what the first amendment requires there's a case that came out to several weeks ago before argument another seven circuit case where judge easterbrook said that you've got to be especially careful in cases like this when you have content neutral rules and you start making exceptions for people who try to invoke first amendment for the content neutral rules because it calls into question the government's ability to be able to enforce the rules against anybody and you made that same point teen years are earlier in the in the city of waco parade parade case the knowles case that when you have situations like here and you have content neutral rules then you have to be very careful about making exceptions and that's not what the first amendment requires picayune to do especially in a case like this one where there are or satisfactory alternatives mr stock still has alternatives both inside the street festival and outside the street festival if he wants to preach into the best will he can do so just without it without amplification the district court discuss satisfactory alternative to it and if he wants to distribute literature inside the festival then he can get a booth like everybody else and like his own church has passed the test of wills but if neither of those options are  past festival for example the march two thousand and fifteen it was the chief of police the understanding that he would be about twenty or twenty feet from the festival at this in this area that is away from the railroad tracks but i think it would just depend on how i mean if he may implicate the ordinance if he gets so close that it would be rock this to an unreasonable person but i think what city the city of pic that they're they're willing to let him get within a close distance he just can't be right on top of everybody with the sound of cation inside the festival because that implicates aggregation and there's no way they could have this festival if you had everyone walking amplification devices and he also has the literature distribution option on the outside of the festival he can he can walk around the borders of the festival and and catch people as they go in and outside of the festival these barricades  davis there's no question that it would be unconstitutional to ban litter distribution on a public street or public sidewalk where you have to crack there's no question about that but then you also have t case which says that well you can you can ban distribution in the context of solicitation and a fair ground area so then the question becomes ok well what about public street cannot buy an illiterate distribution and out on a public street during a public festival so i think what's really before this court is whether or not this court wants to depart from what some sr circuits have done really would not support the idea that you could buy and literature distribution during a public passible so i would submit that that is before the court and what i would ask the court to do is is to actually go along with the sister circuits of the and uphold the same reasoning of have fun and to overturn the decision of the district court below and grant mr stockstill the relief he needs just to merely