Opinion ID: 776902
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Of Narrow Tailoring

Text: 38 Agreeable to the district court's determination that the record is sufficiently complete to rule on the narrow tailoring and ample alternatives of communication requirements, we proceed to deal with those issues without remanding for further proceedings in the district court. 39 In a case involving an unsuccessful challenge to a New York City regulation requiring the use of city sound equipment and an independent sound technician for performances in a bandshell in Central Park, the Supreme Court reaffirm[ed]... that a regulation of the time, place, or manner of protected speech must be narrowly tailored to serve the government's legitimate, content-neutral interests but that it need not be the least restrictive or least intrusive means of doing so. Rock Against Racism, 491 U.S. at 798, 109 S.Ct. 2746. Rather, the requirement of narrow tailoring 40 is satisfied so long as the ... regulation promotes a substantial government interest that would be achieved less effectively absent the regulation. To be sure, this standard does not mean that a time, place, or manner regulation may burden substantially more speech than is necessary to further the government's legitimate interests. 41 Id. at 799, 109 S.Ct. 2746 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). 42 The ban on sound amplification in City Hall Plaza advances the City's substantial interest in protecting its citizens from unwelcome noise. City Council of Los Angeles v. Taxpayers for Vincent, 466 U.S. 789, 806, 104 S.Ct. 2118, 80 L.Ed.2d 772 (1984). The City policy therefore serves a legitimate, content-neutral government interest. But does it focus, as required, on the source of the evils to be eliminated without restricting significantly a substantial quantity of speech not involving the same evils? See Carew-Reid v. Metro. Transp. Auth., 903 F.2d 914, 917 (2d Cir.1990). Although the policy at issue may not achieve its goals by the very least restrictive means possible, we think the answer is yes. 43 While it is true that the sound amplification system in City Hall Plaza can be adjusted to a degree that the sound cannot penetrate the City Hall building, there are problems associated with such an adjustment of sound volume. First, there is a need to monitor the equipment to insure that the proper decibel level is maintained. Second, there is the problem, recognized by both parties in the stipulation dated November 9, 2000, of potential unruly, violent, and hostile conduct when the sound levels are set too low for many of those present to hear. [W]hen a content-neutral regulation does not entirely foreclose any means of communication, it may satisfy the tailoring requirement even though it is not the least restrictive or least intrusive means of serving the statutory goal. Hill v. Colorado, 530 U.S. 703, 726, 120 S.Ct. 2480, 147 L.Ed.2d 597 (2000). 44 Bearing in mind the goal of the City's policy, the banning of all amplified sound in City Hall Plaza, except for the very rare occasion of a ticker-tape parade, while not the least restrictive or least intrusive means of regulating noise in the plaza, does satisfy the narrow tailoring requirement. To say otherwise is to substitute the opinion of the Court for that of the responsible decisionmaker concerning the most appropriate method for promoting significant government interests. United States v. Albertini, 472 U.S. 675, 689, 105 S.Ct. 2897, 86 L.Ed.2d 536 (1985). Such a substitution of opinion is not the business of the courts. Finally, in finding compliance with the narrow tailoring requirement, we take note of the very limited construction that City officials have given to the interpretation of City policy in respect of the holding of ticker-tape parades. See Village of Hoffman Estates v. Flipside, Hoffman Estates, Inc., 455 U.S. 489, 494 n. 5, 102 S.Ct. 1186, 71 L.Ed.2d 362 (1982). As to alternative means of communication, it is apparent that such means are not foreclosed to Housing Works.