## Facts

- Rock Against Racism (RAR) sponsored annual rock concerts at the Naumberg Acoustic Bandshell in Central Park, a traditional public forum.
- The Bandshell sits near Sheep Meadow, an area intended for quiet, “passive recreation,” and the City received many complaints from park users and nearby residents about excessive noise from Bandshell events.
- RAR used its own public-address equipment and its own sound personnel for its concerts.
- At one RAR concert, after repeated City requests to lower the volume were ignored, City officials cut power to the equipment; the crowd then became abusive and disruptive.
- The City also encountered issues at other Bandshell events where sponsors brought inadequate equipment or employed technicians who mixed sound poorly for the venue, contributing to bad sound and disorderly crowds.
- In response, New York City adopted a Bandshell “Use Guideline” requiring that, for Bandshell performances, the City would provide sound equipment and retain an independent, experienced sound technician.
- Under the guideline, the City’s technician had authority over volume levels and related settings; the District Court found that, in practice, the technician generally consulted with sponsors and allowed them control over the sound mix while ensuring compliance with volume limits.
- RAR challenged the guideline as a violation of the First Amendment, arguing it deprived RAR of control over technical aspects tied to its expression.

## Issues

1. Whether New York City’s requirement that Bandshell performers use City-provided sound equipment and a City-retained technician is a valid, content-neutral time, place, and manner restriction under the First Amendment.
2. Whether “narrow tailoring” for content-neutral time, place, and manner restrictions requires the City to use the least restrictive or least intrusive means.
3. Whether giving a City technician control over volume and related settings impermissibly burdens expression by allowing governmental control over elements of performance presentation (including the sound mix).

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed the Second Circuit and reinstated the District Court’s judgment upholding the guideline.
- The Court held the guideline was content neutral because it was justified without reference to the content of speech, resting on noise control, sound quality, and crowd-management concerns.
- The Court rejected the Second Circuit’s “least intrusive means” requirement for content-neutral time, place, and manner regulations.
- The Court held the guideline was narrowly tailored because it served significant governmental interests and those interests would be achieved less effectively without the guideline; the First Amendment does not require the City to select the least speech-restrictive option.
- The Court concluded the guideline left open ample alternative channels for communication because performers could still play at the Bandshell (using the City equipment and technician) and could perform in other locations not subject to the same rule.

## Legal Principles

- In a traditional public forum, the government may impose content-neutral time, place, and manner restrictions if they (1) are content neutral, (2) are narrowly tailored to serve a significant governmental interest, and (3) leave open ample alternative channels for communication.
- A regulation is content neutral when it is justified without reference to the content of the regulated speech, even if it affects how speech is presented.
- For content-neutral time, place, and manner restrictions, “narrow tailoring” does not require the least restrictive or least intrusive means; the regulation must not burden substantially more speech than necessary to further the government’s legitimate interests.
- The government has a significant interest in limiting excessive sound in public spaces to protect unwilling listeners and preserve quiet areas, and it may implement reasonable operational controls to carry out that interest.
- A rule directed at controlling sound volume and ensuring workable sound management does not become content based merely because it touches technical components associated with expressive performances.

## Conclusion

Ward v. Rock Against Racism upheld New York City’s Central Park Bandshell Use Guideline requiring City-provided sound equipment and a City-retained technician as a valid content-neutral time, place, and manner regulation: it served significant interests in controlling excessive noise and maintaining orderly events, was narrowly tailored without any requirement that the City choose the least restrictive alternative, and left open adequate avenues for speakers to perform and reach audiences.


{"search_query": [{"q": "\"491 U.S. 781\""}]}