Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/16pdf/15-1194_08l1.pdf
Page Number: 3.0

Cite as:  582 U. S. ____ (2017) 

3 

Syllabus 

The  Court  noted,  moreover,  that  a  larger  buffer  zone  could  “become 
an  impermissible  burden”  under  the  First  Amendment.  Id.,  at  210. 
The  better  analogy  is  Board  of  Airport  Comm’rs  of  Los  Angeles  v. 
Jews  for  Jesus,  Inc.,  482  U. S.  569.    If  an  ordinance  prohibiting  any
“First Amendment activities” at a single Los Angeles airport could be
struck  down  because  it  covered  all  manner  of  protected,  nondisrup-
tive behavior, including “talking and reading, or the wearing of cam-
paign  buttons  or  symbolic  clothing,”  id.,  at  571,  575,  it  follows  with 
even greater force that the State may not enact this complete bar to
the  exercise  of  First  Amendment  rights  on  websites  integral  to  the 
fabric of modern society and culture.  Pp. 9–10. 

368 N. C. 380, 777 S. E. 2d 738, reversed and remanded. 

KENNEDY, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which GINSBURG, 
BREYER, SOTOMAYOR, and KAGAN, JJ., joined.  ALITO, J., filed an opinion 
concurring  in  the  judgment,  in  which  ROBERTS,  C. J.,  and  THOMAS,  J., 
joined.  GORSUCH, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of the 
case.