Law
Free Speech Zones as Content-Neutral Time-Place-Manner Regulations
Quick fact
The Supreme Court has upheld free speech zones as constitutional when they are content-neutral, narrowly tailored to serve a significant governmental interest, and leave open ample alternative channels of communication—but the zone must not restrict speech based on its message.
Why this is interesting
Imagine being told you can only protest in a fenced-off area far from the event you want to address—yet the law might still call that a fair restriction. How can that be?