A city enacts a law prohibiting individuals from displaying signs critical of public officials in public parks, claiming it is necessary to maintain public order. A local activist challenges the law, arguing it violates the First Amendment. What is the primary factor in determining whether this law is constitutional?
Whether the law is content-based or content-neutral
Whether the speaker had alternative methods to communicate their message
Whether the law applies to a limited public forum
Whether the law imposes a financial burden on the speaker
The primary factor in determining whether the law is constitutional is whether the regulation is content-based or content-neutral. A content-based restriction, such as one targeting speech critical of public officials, must satisfy strict scrutiny. Under strict scrutiny, the government must prove that the law is narrowly tailored to serve a compelling governmental interest. In this case, targeting speech critical of public officials directly regulates the content of the message, making the law subject to strict scrutiny. The other options describe factors that are more likely to apply when examining content-neutral regulations or fail to address the specific issue of content regulation.
Ask Bash
Bash is our AI bot, trained to help you pass your exam. AI Generated Content may display inaccurate information, always double-check anything important.
What does it mean for a law to be content-based versus content-neutral?
Open an interactive chat with Bash
What is strict scrutiny, and how does it apply to laws restricting speech?
Open an interactive chat with Bash
What are the implications of a law being deemed unconstitutional due to its content-based nature?