Opinion ID: 2301894
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Significant Government Interest

Text: DRED claims that the purpose of the regulation is to allow it to manage the varied and competing uses of park resources and to mitigate the impacts of commercial events. These interests are certainly significant. See Forsyth County v. Nationalist Movement, 505 U.S. 123, 130, 112 S.Ct. 2395, 120 L.Ed.2d 101 (1992) ([I]n order to regulate competing uses of public forums, [the government] may impose a permit requirement on those wishing to hold a march, parade, or rally....); Clark v. Community for Creative Non-Violence, 468 U.S. 288, 299, 104 S.Ct. 3065, 82 L.Ed.2d 221 (1984) ([T]here is a substantial Government interest in conserving park property ...). DRED also claims that it has a significant interest in protecting visitors from unwelcome or unwarranted interference, annoyance, or danger. It is unclear whether this constitutes a significant government interest. Compare F.C.C. v. Pacifica Foundation, 438 U.S. 726, 749 n. 27, 98 S.Ct. 3026, 57 L.Ed.2d 1073 (1978) (Outside the home, the balance between the offensive speaker and the unwilling audience may sometimes tip in favor of the speaker, requiring the offended listener to turn away.), and Coates v. City of Cincinnati, 402 U.S. 611, 615, 91 S.Ct. 1686, 29 L.Ed.2d 214 (1971) (The First and Fourteenth Amendments do not permit a State to make criminal the exercise of the right of assembly simply because its exercise may be `annoying' to some people.), with Schaumburg v. Citizens for Better Environ., 444 U.S. 620, 636, 100 S.Ct. 826, 63 L.Ed.2d 73 (1980) (stating that the government has a substantial interest in protecting the public from fraud, crime and undue annoyance), and State v. Brobst, 151 N.H. 420, 424, 857 A.2d 1253 (2004) (Certainly the State has a legitimate interest in protecting citizens from the effects of certain types of annoying or alarming telephone calls, such as the terror caused to an unsuspecting person when he or she answers the telephone, perhaps late at night, to hear nothing but a tirade of threats, curses, and obscenities, or, equally frightening, to hear only heavy breathing or groaning. (quotation omitted)). However, because we ultimately conclude that the regulation is not narrowly tailored, we assume, without deciding, that preventing such annoyance is a significant government interest.