08-07-2017 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

RELEVANT LINKS: League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 1/4/2016 Regulating Peddlers, Solicitors and Transient Merchants Page 13 1.Prior restraint A prior restraint is a government attempt, either through a total ban or as a consequence of local licensing, to suppress communications before they can reach the general public. Concerns with prior restraint are demonstrated by the situation where a government official is provided absolute discretion in granting or denying a permit and, ultimately, whether the speech is allowed to occur. Forsyth County v. The Nationalist Movement¸ 505 U.S. 123, 112 S. Ct. 2395 (1992). To avoid claims of unbridled restraint and violations of the individual’s (or organization’s) freedom of speech, the local ordinance must: •Contain narrow, objective, and definite standards used to guide the licensing authority. •Provide limits on the time within which the licensing authority has to make its determination. FW/PBS, Inc. v. City of Dallas, 493 U.S. 215, 110 S. Ct. 596 (1990). The U.S. Supreme Court has considered the lack of such basic requirements “evils that will not be tolerated.” 2.Commercial speech State Bd. of Pharmacy v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council, Inc., 425 U.S. 748, 96 S. Ct. 1817 (1976). Commercial speech typically does no more than propose a business transaction. As distinguished from religious, political, or social speech, where the dialogue may include the sharing of a viewpoint on an issue, commercial forms of expression generally relate to economic interests. Limited First Amendment protections have been extended to speech that “does no more than propose a commercial transaction.” Cent. Hudson Gas & Elec. Corp. v. Pub. Serv. Comm., 447 U.S. 557, 100 S. Ct. 2343 (1980). Regulations on commercial speech are subject to a four-part test: •Is the proposed activity protected by the First Amendment to the extent that it concerns lawful activity and is not misleading? The First Amendment does not protect false or misleading commercial speech. •Are the asserted governmental interests substantial? A local government’s interests in privacy, crime prevention, and fraud are usually considered sufficient “substantial interests.” •Does the regulation directly advance the asserted governmental interests? If the purpose of the regulation is to prohibit fraud, there must be a link between that regulation and the prevention of fraud, not mere happenstance.