Matches in DBpedia 2014 for { ?s ?p 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 mandating 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 so long as the regulation promoted a substantial government interest that would be achieved less effectively absent 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 believes 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.. }
Showing items 1 to 1 of
1
with 100 items per page.
- Ward_v._Rock_Against_Racism abstract "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 mandating 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 so long as the regulation promoted a substantial government interest that would be achieved less effectively absent 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 believes 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.".