Agenda - Council - 04/13/2021 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

10/29/2020 State v. Castellano :: 1993 :: Minnesota Court of Appeals Decisions :: Minnesota Case Law :: Minnesota Law :: US Law :: Justia In First Amendment time, place, or manner cases, the principal inquiry in determining whether legislation is content -neutral is "whether the government has adopted a regulation of speech because of disagreement with the message it conveys." Ward v. Rock Against Racism, 491 U.S. 781, 791, 109 S. Ct. 2746, 2754, 105 L. Ed. 2d 661 (1989). An ordinance restricting expressive activity is content -neutral so long as it is "justified without reference to the content of the regulated speech." Id. (quoting Clark v. Community for Creative Non - Violence, 468 U.S. 288, 293, 104 S. Ct. 3065, 3069, 82 L. Ed. 2d 221 (1984)). The Frisby Court accepted the determination of the lower courts that the Brookfield ordinance was content -neutral. Frisby, 487 U.S. at 482, 108 S. Ct. at 2501. Appellant argues that Carey v. Brown, 447 U.S. 455, 10o S. Ct. 2286, 65 L. Ed. 2d 263 (1980) compels a conclusion that the White Bear ordinance is not "content -neutral." We disagree and find Carey distinguishable. In Carey the regulation prohibited residential picketing except for peaceful picketing of a place of employment involved in a labor dispute. Id. at 457, 10o S. Ct. at 2288. Because the regulation in Carey discriminated among speech -related activities in a public forum based upon content, the Court considered whether the statute was finely tailored to serve a substantial state interest. Id. at 462-63, 10o S. Ct. at 2291. The Court determined that exempting labor picketing did not advance the state's asserted interest in protecting residential privacy, id. at 465, 10o S. Ct. at 2293, and struck the regulation as unconstitutional. Appellant has presented no evidence that the Town of White Bear discriminatorily enacted the ordinance specifically to suppress expression espousing opposition to abortion. To the contrary, the White Bear ordinance unequivocally prohibits all targeted residential picketing regardless of the content of speech and is, therefore, content neutral. See Ward, 491 U.S. at 791, 109 S. Ct. at 2754. B. Valid Governmental Interest In Ordinance No. 63, the Town of White Bear specifically states that it has an interest in protecting residential privacy. A similar significant governmental interest was acknowledged in Frisby, 487 U.S. at 484, io8 S. Ct. at 2502. The Court has long recognized that: Preserving the sanctity of the home, the one retreat to which men and women can repair to escape from the tribulations of their daily pursuits, is surely an important value. * * * The State's interest in protecting the well-being, tranquility, and privacy of the home is certainly of the highest order in a free and civilized society. https://law.justia.com/cases/minnesota/court-of-appeals/1993/c4-93-356.html 5/12