Business Law and Freedom of Speech

New York City has dealt with vandalism and fault of prevalent property caused by unauthorized graffiti for decades. In declination 2005, the city banned the sale of volume-detonation bomb spray-paint and broad-tipped indelible markers to persons under black flag and proscribeed them from possessing them on public property. Within five months, five people, who were exclusively under the age of 21, were cited for violations of the regulations.Lindsey Vincenty, who was studying visual arts, was unable to buy or carry her supplies in the city, filed a suit, along with others, in the federal partition court on behalf of themselves and other young artists. They claimed that the new rules violated their mightily to freedom of speech. The issue is whether these regulations violate the right to freedom of speech. RULE license of Speech is protected by the First Amendment which guarantees the freedoms of religion, speech, and the press and the rights to assemble pacific on the wholey and to petition the government. Symbolic speech, which includes gestures, movements, articles of clothing, and other forms of expressive conduct, is given substantial security by the courts. However, thither are intelligent lying-ins. Expression oral, written, or symbolized by conduct is subject to reasonable restrictions. The court may allow a restriction if it is content neutral. In order to be considered content neutral, the restriction must be combating a societal problem.APPLICATION. The court was asked to enjoin (to prohibit or forbid) the enforcement of the rules. Symbolic speech is protected by the courts, but thither are reasonable restrictions. The city of New York banned the sale of aerosol spray paint and markers to persons under twenty-one due to the vandalism and disgrace of public property. Even after the ban was in place, five people, all under the age of twenty-one, were cited for violations on these regulations, and 871 people were arrested for making graffi ti.According to the rule of reasonable restrictions, the court can allow a restriction if it is content neutral. This spot can be considered content neutral based on the incident that the restriction is combating a societal problem, being vandalism and defacement of public property. With that being said, these regulations do not violate the right to freedom of speech. finishing These regulations do not violate the right to freedom of speech because there is a reasonable restriction of content neutral.