Opinion ID: 441810
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: in each respect, the richmond ordinance is unconstitutional on its face.

Text: 48 The City of Richmond inaccurately argued that the NAACP lacks standing to challenge the parade ordinance on its face. See Section I(A)(3), supra. That argument is properly addressed here, as we devise a remedy to protect the rights of potential marchers whose speech would otherwise be chilled. 49 We will strike down a statute on its face if the law is substantially overbroad. This requirement keeps us from striking down a statute on its face simply because of the possibility that it might be applied in an unconstitutional manner. Munson, 104 S.Ct. at 2839. We will not facially invalidate a statute where a large part of the conduct which the statute regulates is legitimately proscribed. Id. Rather, there must be a realistic danger that the statute itself will significantly compromise recognized First Amendment protections of parties not before the Court. Vincent, 104 S.Ct. at 2126. 50 We find precisely that danger in the Richmond parade ordinance. Here there is no core of easily identifiable and constitutionally proscribable conduct that the statute prohibits. Munson, 104 S.Ct. at 2852. First, we cannot identify, before the fact, a discrete category of parades whose message will never depend on their timing. Second, the waiver provision is uniformly unconstitutional because in all cases it raises the spectre of administrative censorship. The flaw in the Richmond ordinance is not simply that it includes within its sweep some impermissible applications, but that in all its applications, it operates on a fundamentally mistaken premise. Id. It assumes that speech can permissibly be delayed at the discretion of governmental agencies because of the substantial government interest in regulating parades. Twenty days of delay, however, is too long and administrative discretion is impermissible. Thus, we strike down the Richmond parade ordinance on its face. 9 51