Opinion ID: 768307
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The City's Licensing System

Text: 92 The City has in place a permitting system for the taking of photographs . . . in or about city property, or in or about any city street. See N.Y. City Charter 1301(l)(r). The City might have attempted to employ that system to deal with Tunick's intended photo shoot in a residential Manhattan neighborhood. Of course, the [C]ity may require periodic licensing, and may even have special licensing procedures for conduct commonly associated with expression. City of Lakewood v. Plain Dealer Pub. Co., 486 U.S. 750, 760 (1988). Under a properly structured licensing system, a municipality may constitutionally regulate at least the time, place and manner of expressive activity. See, e.g., Forsyth County v. Nationalist Movement, 505 U.S. 123, 130 (1992). But a system of licensing speech or other expression is impermissible if it does not contain clear objective standards on the basis of which the licensing authority must act. This deters the licensor from engaging in raw censorship, preventing or unduly restricting speech of which or by people of whom he or she disapproves. See, e.g., Ward v. Rock Against Racism, 491 U.S. 781, 791 (1989) (principal inquiry in licensing cases is whether the government has adopted a regulation of speech because of disagreement with the message it conveys.) 93 Standards provide the guideposts that check the licensor and allow courts quickly and easily to determine whether the licensor is discriminating against disfavored speech. Without these guideposts, post hoc rationalizations by the licensing official and the use of shifting or illegitimate criteria are far too easy, making it difficult for courts to determine in any particular case whether the licensor is permitting favorable, and suppressing unfavorable, expression. 94 Lakewood, 486 U.S. at 758 (citation omitted). A law subjecting the exercise of First Amendment freedoms to the prior restraint of a license, without narrow, objective, and definite standards to guide the licensing authority, is unconstitutional. Shuttlesworth v. City of Birmingham, 394 U.S. 147, 150-51 (1969) (footnote containing citations omitted). 95 We need not review the statutory basis for, or the operation of, the City's licensing system here, however. As Judge Calabresi observes, ante at 70, the City has explicitly declined to base its threatened arrest of Tunick and his models upon his failure to obtain a City permit. 3