Ward v. Rock Against Racism
http://dbpedia.org/resource/Ward_v._Rock_Against_Racism an entity of type: Thing
Ward v. Rock Against Racism, 491 U.S. 781 (1989), was a United States Supreme Court case. In an opinion by Justice Kennedy, the Court rejected a First Amendment challenge to a New York City regulation that mandated the use of city-provided sound systems and technicians to control the volume of concerts in New York City's Central Park. The Court found that the city had a substantial interest in limiting excessive noise and the regulation was "content neutral." The court found that "narrow tailoring" would be satisfied if the regulation promoted a substantial government interest that would be achieved less effectively without the regulation.
rdf:langString
rdf:langString
Ward v. Rock Against Racism
rdf:langString
rdf:langString
Benjamin R. Ward, et al. v. Rock Against Racism
xsd:integer
24347034
xsd:integer
1098655586
rdf:langString
Marshall
rdf:langString
Brennan, Stevens
rdf:langString
Rehnquist, White, O'Connor, Scalia
<second>
172800.0
rdf:langString
Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
xsd:integer
781
xsd:integer
491
xsd:gMonthDay
--02-27
xsd:integer
1989
rdf:langString
Ward v. Rock Against Racism,
xsd:gMonthDay
--06-22
xsd:integer
1989
rdf:langString
Benjamin R. Ward, et al. v. Rock Against Racism
rdf:langString
A regulation of the time, place, or manner of protected speech must be narrowly tailored to serve the government’s legitimate content-neutral interests but does not need to be the least restrictive or the least-intrusive means of doing so.
rdf:langString
Ward v. Rock Against Racism
rdf:langString
Kennedy
rdf:langString
Ward v. Rock Against Racism, 491 U.S. 781 (1989), was a United States Supreme Court case. In an opinion by Justice Kennedy, the Court rejected a First Amendment challenge to a New York City regulation that mandated the use of city-provided sound systems and technicians to control the volume of concerts in New York City's Central Park. The Court found that the city had a substantial interest in limiting excessive noise and the regulation was "content neutral." The court found that "narrow tailoring" would be satisfied if the regulation promoted a substantial government interest that would be achieved less effectively without the regulation. Justices Marshall, Brennan, and Stevens dissented. In his dissent, Marshall agreed with the majority that the government has a substantial interest in controlling noise but believed that it may not advance that interest by actually asserting control over the amplification equipment and thus over private expression itself. The government has an obligation to adopt the least intrusive restriction necessary to achieve its goals such as enforcing the noise ordinance that has already been adopted.
rdf:langString
Blackmun
xsd:nonNegativeInteger
3017