This preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.View Full Document
Unformatted text preview: of the Bill of Rights are not absolute", and as in Saia v. New York , "the hours and place of public discussion can be controlled." Trenton was granted the authority to prevent "disturbing noises" and "protect the wellbeing and tranquility of a community." Since the ordinance furthered Trenton's interest in maintaining "the quiet and tranquility so desirable for city dwellers," the ordinance did not violate the Free Speech Clause. Justices Robert H. Jackson and Felix Frankfurter each concurred separately. IV. Reasons (by ___) a. Form of argument b. Legal doctrines V. Dissent reasons VI. Concurring reasons Notes Standards used to determine suppression of speech. (Not developed in this case) The Restriction must: 1.) Have a Good Reason 2.) Be Appropriate not overly broad 3.) Not Discriminatory (evenhanded) (Underinclusive) 4.) Alternative available means...
View Full Document
- Spring '10
- Supreme Court of the United States, First Amendment to the United States Constitution, New Jersey, United States Bill of Rights, Charles Kovacs