Use the Supreme Court’s 2015 ruling in Reed v. Town of Gilbert to discuss the distinction made between content-based and content-neutral regulations of speech.

Question

What will be an ideal response?

Answer 1

a. Traditionally, content-based regulations restrained particular speech due to government disfavor with its content while content-neutral regulations incidentally infringed on speech to advance a government interest unrelated to speech. Thus, content-based regulations historically have lain at the heart of government censorship. Content-neutral laws have controlled aspects of speech related to time, place, and manner to, for example, assure community safety and aesthetics.
b. In Reed the majority of the Court said a law is content based on its face, and therefore subject to strict scrutiny, if it requires reference to the content of speech to determine its application. Any categorical distinction (e.g., incitement or obscenity of campaign finance) seems to require such reference. Many such laws don’t suggest the same government intent to censor nor do these differentiations, which may be purely operational, necessarily create unreasonable disparities in the treatment of different types of speech.
c. The Court in Reed said its ruling did not eliminate content-neutral sign rules that apply different restrictions based on sign size or location rather than the type of speech.