Question

Swimmers were unable to use a city-owned beach for several days because demonstrators protesting city policies had taken over the beach. Immediately after the demonstration ended, the city enacted an ordinance that banned “all First Amendment activities” on the beach. What is the best argument AGAINST the constitutionality of the ordinance?

(A) The ordinance amounts to a prior restraint on speech.
(B) The ordinance is overly broad.
(C) The beach is a public forum.
(D) The city enacted the ordinance to prevent further
protests of its policies.

Answer 1

The best argument against the constitutionality of the ordinance is that it is overly broad, as it fails the test of content neutrality.

Step-by-step explanation:

The best argument against the constitutionality of the ordinance is option (B) The ordinance is overly broad.

Content restrictions on speech must be content neutral. If a limit is placed on a particular kind of speech or form of expression, it must be applied to all instances of that kind, without favoring one over the other. The ordinance banning all First Amendment activities on the beach fails this test because it restricts all forms of expression, regardless of their content. It therefore violates the principle of content neutrality.