Practice question
A municipality adopts a message-neutral crowd-management rule within its lawful powers. In court it proves an important safety interest unrelated to suppressing expression, but the rule closes every available public speaking venue all year although the identified risk exists only for two hours at one crowded site. No evidence explains the far wider closure. Does proof of the first three content-neutral-test elements necessarily validate the measure?
- Yes, the tailoring element is optional.
- Yes, every safety rule is immune from review.
- Yes, neutrality alone guarantees validity.
- Yes, because year-round closure is easier to administer.
- No; the incidental restriction must still be no greater than essential to further the interest.
Legal references
- Diocese of Bacolod v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 205728, January 21, 2015, main decision, speech-regulation tests: https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/jan2015/gr_205728_2015.html
Answer this question in flashcards to review your response and continue practicing.