Opinion ID: 75672
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Hearing on Preliminary Injunction

Text: 25 At the hearing on October 6, 2000, Horton again challenged multiple features of Section 22-9 as unconstitutionally vague, impermissibly overbroad, and unduly restrictive of speech in time, place, and manner. For example, although emphasizing vagueness in such phrases as includes, but is not limited to in the definition of perform, Horton also asserted Section 22-9 was overbroad because [t]his law criminalizes wholly-innocent activities. It criminalizes singing and dancing on St. George Street which makes it overbroad. Thus, he argued it may be facially invalid even if [it] can have a legitimate application. Further attacking Section 22-9 as an unreasonable restriction on activities protected by the First Amendment, Horton explained that it impermissibly targets certain types of speech that the City seeks to prevent on St. George Street due to its content or subject matter. 26 Relying on affidavit testimony and public hearing transcripts, the City responded that these restrictions were needed in this narrow four-block area due to safety, noise, congestion, aggressive solicitation, and aesthetic harm caused by the street performers. The City further defended Section 22-9 as not unconstitutional on any of the grounds raised by Horton.