Question

Facts:

For many years, New York City has had to deal with vandalism and defacement of public property caused by unauthorized graffiti. In an effort to stop the damage, the city banned the sale of aerosol spray-paint cans and broad-tipped indelible markers to persons under age twenty-one years of age. The new rule also prohibited people from possessing these items on property other than their own. Within a year, five people under age twenty-one were cited for violations of these regulations and 871 individuals were arrested for actually making graffiti.

Lindsey Vincenty and other artists wished to create graffiti on legal surfaces, such as canvas, wood and clothing. Unable to buy supplies in the city or to carry them into the city from elsewhere, Vincenty and others filed a lawsuit on behalf of themselves and other young artists against Michael Bloomberg, the city's mayor and others. The plaintiffs claimed that, among other things, the new rules violated their right to free speech.

Questions:

1. How can the plaintiffs argue that the city's new rules violate their freedom of speech? Explain using legal principles from chapter four.
2. How can the city's mayor and others argue that the new rules do not result in a free speech violation? Explain using legal principles from chapter four.
3. Will the city's ban be subject to strict scrutiny, intermediate scrutiny or the rational basis test? Explain.
4. Based on your answer to question four, does the city's ban result in an equal protection violation because it only applies to persons under age twenty-one? Why or why not? Explain and apply the proper standard of review.

Answer 1

1. The plaintiffs can argue that the city's new rule violates their freedom of speech as the ban is content-neutral and it burdens more speech than it was necessary to city to achieve its goals to protect the city from vandalism.

2. City's mayor can argue that the ban is on certain types fo goods and if the rule is narrowly tailored to make it content specific then the city would not be able to achieve its goals of bringing this ordinance.

3. It will be subject to strict scrutiny as the government will have to prove that the interest is compelling enough and necessitates the ban as there are no other means available at the disposal of the government.

4. It does violate the equal protection violation because it only applies to a person under the age of 21, however, such actions can be committed by a person who is over the age of 21 and it does not serve the full purpose of imposing such ban on only to the age restriction of 21 years.