Full access allows:
- Solve all tests online without limits;
- Remove all advertisements on website;
- Adding questions to favorite list;
- Save learning progress;
- Save results of practice exams;
- Watching all wrong answered questions.
50. Which of the following would be the most useful argument for the political party?
A political party wanted to hang a six-foot-long red, white, and blue political banner in front of a building in the historic district. The party filed suit to challenge the constitutionality of the sign ordinance as applied to the display of its banner.
Residents of a city complained that brightly colored signs detracted from the character of the city's historic district and distracted motorists trying to navigate its narrow streets. In response, the city council enacted an ordinance requiring any «sign or visual display» visible on the streets of the historic district to be black and white and to be no more than four feet long or wide.
Comments (0)
There are no comments at the moment. If you found an error or think question is incorrect, tell everyone about it
Only signed in users can write comments
Signin
B is correct. The political party's best argument is that the ordinance is not substantially related to an important government interest, nor does it leave open alternative channels of communication. Because the ordinance is a content-neutral restriction of expression, it must satisfy intermediate scrutiny, which requires the city to prove that the ordinance is substantially related to further an important government interest and that it leaves open alternative channels of communication. Thus, this answer is correct because it is the only argument that applies the correct test for a content-neutral restriction.
A is incorrect. This answer choice suggests that the court should apply a strict scrutiny standard to the case, which would require the city to prove that the ordinance is the least restrictive means of promoting a compelling government interest. The city's ordinance does not trigger strict scrutiny because it restricts signs regardless of their content. Because the ordinance is a content-neutral restriction of expression, it must satisfy only intermediate scrutiny, as explained above.
C is incorrect. The ordinance does not impose a prior restraint because it does not require the permission of a government official before signs may be posted.
D is incorrect. The text of the city's ordinance restricts signs regardless of their content, and there are no facts to support a claim that the ordinance effectively operates as a content-based restriction on expression. Moreover, even if the ordinance effectively favors some categories of speech over others, this fact by itself would be insufficient to cause a court to invalidate the ordinance.