What is the current state of the law regarding time, place and manner restrictions on speech and assembly?

A certain tension exists between the government's need to regulate the use of city streets to assure the safety and convenience of the public, and the constitutional right of free speech. Cox v. State of Louisiana, 379 U.S. 536, 554, 85 S.Ct. 453, 464,

Page 314

The rights of free speech and assembly, while fundamental in our democratic society, still do not mean that anyone with opinions or beliefs to express may address a group at any public place and at any time. The constitutional guarantee of liberty implies the existence of an organized society maintaining public order, without which liberty itself would be lost in the excesses of anarchy. The control of travel on the streets is a clear example of governmental responsibility to insure this necessary order. A restriction in that relation, designed to promote the public convenience in the interest of all, and not susceptible to abuses of discriminatory application, cannot be disregarded by the attempted exercise of some civil right which, in other circumstances, would be entitled protection. Cox v. State of Louisiana, supra, 379 U.S. at 554, 85 S.Ct. at 464.

Reasonable "time, place and manner" regulations may be necessary to further significant governmental interests and are allowed. Grayned v. City of Rockford, supra, 408 U.S. at 115, 92 S.Ct. at 2303.

The well-established tests for assessing the validity of such a restriction require that it (1) be content-neutral, (2) be narrowly tailored and meet a significant governmental interest, and (3) leave open ample alternative means of communication. Olivieri v. Ward, supra, 801 F.2d at 605.