"Suresh Ramasubramanian" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> "(2) Nothing in sub-clause (a) of clause (1) shall affect the >> operation of any existing law, or prevent the State from making any >> law, in so far as such law imposes reasonable restrictions on the >> exercise of the right conferred by the said sub-clause in the >> interests of the security of the State, friendly relations with >> foreign States, public order, decency or morality, or in relation to >> contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an offence."; > > Compare this with US restrictions on how much rope the 1st amendment gives > you: > > http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/timeplacemanner.htm > > In short, there's a 4 way test for government imposed restrictions on free > speech: > > Test for Constitutional Validity of Time, Place and Manner Regulations in > the Public Forum
The nature of Time, Place and Manner regulations is important. They don't mean that you can prevent people from displaying a painting like "The Origin of the World". They mean that you can restrict people from putting it in the middle of a street where it would block traffic. You can prevent people from playing loud music outside your window at 3am, too, but because it would wake people up and not because of what the lyrics in the music are. "Time, Place and Manner" restrictions can't pay attention to the nature of the content of expression, only to where and when it happens. > 1. Does the regulation serve an important governmental interest? > > 2. Is the government interest served by the regulation unrelated to the > suppression of a particular message? > > 3. Is the regulation narrowly tailored to serve the government's interest? > > 4. Does the regulation leave open ample alternative means for communicating > messages? -- Perry E. Metzger [EMAIL PROTECTED]
