Freedom of Speech. The City of Tacoma, Washington, enacted an ordinance that prohibited the playing of car sound systems at a volume that would be "audible" at a distance greater than fifty feet. Dwight Holland was arrested and convicted for violating

Question

the ordinance. The conviction was later dismissed, but Holland filed a civil suit in a Washington state court against the city. He claimed in part that the ordinance violated his freedom of speech under the First Amendment. On what basis might the court conclude that this ordinance is constitutional? (Hint: In playing a sound system, was Holland actually expressing himself?)

Answer 1

Freedom of speech
The court dismissed Holland's complaint, and he appealed. The state intermediate appellate court affirmed the lower court's decision. The state intermediate appellate court initially determined that, in playing a car sound system loud enough to violate the ordinance, Holland was not actually expressing himself. (He was only listening.) This meant that, as to Holland, the ordinance regulated only his conduct, not his expression. The court held that the First Amendment "protect[s] the communication and expression of someone attempting to broadcast music or another type of message, but that noise is subject to regulation." The court concluded that Holland failed to show "a real and substantial threat to expression in relation to the ordinance's legitimate sweep." The court also pointed out that "[t]his ordinance has clear guidelines. A person of ordinary intelligence knows what it means for sound to be ‘audible' at more than 50 feet away."