Opinion ID: 29313
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: manner test.

Text: The first requirement is content neutrality. “‘The principal inquiry in determining content We have interpreted the substantial neutrality, in speech cases generally and in government interest standard as requiring not time, place, and manner cases in particular, is only a showing of the importance of the whether the government has adopted a interest, but also a demonstration that the regulation of speech because of disagreement challenged statute, at least to some degree, is with the message it conveys.’” Hill v. effective in serving that interest.5 This Colorado, 530 U.S. 703, 719 (2000) (quoting approach arguably conflicts with City of RenWard, 491 U.S. at 791). Although Encore ton, which mandates only that a statute be Videos claims that Ordinance #87443 is “designed to serve a substantial government “content-based,” it provides no evidence to interest” and does not require evidence of support that assertion. effectiveness. City of Renton, 475 U.S. at 47 (emphasis added). City of Renton does require The inquiry here is similar to that applied to proof of the existence of the secondary effects the question of secondary effects motivation, that the challenged ordinance seeks to described in part II.A, infra. It is not certain, eliminate but does not consider the question of however, whether the two tests require the proof of effectiveness in combating them. Id. same degree of proof of improper motive at 50-52. This court’s caselaw also may be in before a regulation fails them. Even so, an or- tension with other Supreme Court time, place, dinance for which the record discloses zero and manner cases that require evidence of proof of improper motive surely passes both effectiveness and necessity only as a part of the tests. narrow-tailoring prong of the time, place, and manner test. See, e.g., Frisby, 487 U.S. at