It is well-established, moreover, that the government may
impose restrictions on the time, place, and manner of communicative
conduct, including activity motivated by sincere religious beliefs,
as long as conditions, prescribed in precedent, are met. See,
e.g., Heffron v. International Society for Krishna Consciousness,
Inc., 452 U.S. 640, 647-48, 652, 659 n.3 (1981) (majority
opinion and concurring in part, dissenting in part opinion); Cox,
312 U.S. at 575-76; Cantwell v Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296,
304 (1940); Brandon v. Board of Education, 635 F.2d 971,
980 (2d Cir. 1980), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1123 (1981).
Those conditions are that (1) the time, place,
[1 Depending on which characterization
of the facts is accepted, the restrictions at issue here pertain
either to the manner in which appellants communicate (through
their signs while sleeping) or to conduct which facilitates that
communication in the place chosen by appellants for that purpose
(sleep enables continuous vigil). Which characterization is accepted
is unimportant to this court's analysis, however, as both communication
itself and facilitative activity that makes possible such expression
are protected by the first amendment. See e.g., White House
Vigil v. Clark, 746 F.2d 1518 1540 (D.C. Cir. 1984), cf. Community
for Creative Non-Violence v. Watt, 703 F.2d 586, 601 (D.C.
Cir. 1983) (Edwards, J. concurring) (action which is part communication
and part facilitation enjoys some level of first amendment protection),
rev'd 468 U.S. 288 (1984).]
1
and manner restrictions not be based on the content or subject
matter of speech, (2) the restrictions be narrowly tailored to
serve a significant governmental interest, and (3) the restrictions
leave available alternatives for the communicative activity. See,
e.g., City Council v. Taxpayers for Vincent, 466 U.S. 789,
808 (1984); Heffron, 452 U.S. at 648-50, 654; Consolidated
Edison Co. v. Public Service Commission, 447 U.S. 530, 535-36
(1980).
Regulations prohibiting camping in Lafayette park have
been upheld by the Supreme Court as meeting these requirements.
In Clark, 468 U.S. at 294-97, the High Court stated that
the regulations are content neutral, narrowly focus on the "Government's
substantial interest in maintaining the parks in the heart of
our Capital in an attractive and intact condition, readily available
to the millions of people who wish to see and enjoy them by their
presence," and leave many other means and places available
for expressive activity. Clark also disposes of an additional
argument appellees here attempt to make: although the immediate
threat to the Government's substantial interest from one or even
a small group of campers in Lafayette Park may not be large, the
validity of the regulation is not to be judged solely by reference
ta the case at hand. Once camping is permitted for one or a few,
it may not be denied to others who seek equal access. Clark,
468 U.S. at 296-97; see also Heffron, 452 U.S. at 654.
Because of the posture in which the case is presented to
this court, our decision is necessarily limited. We hold only
that the criminal informations involved in this case should not
have been dismissed for the reasons given by the district court.
Accordingly, the order of the district court dismissing the informations
is reversed and the case is remanded to the district court for
further proceedings consistent with this memorandum. See Ambach
v. Bell, 685 F.2d 974, 979 (D.C. Cir. 1982).
Contents
Case Listing --- Proposition
One ---- Peace Park