# Is this city ordinance too broad to be constitutional?

**URL:** <https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-city-ordinance-too-broad-to-be-constitutional/635693>\
**Category:** Great Debates\
**Created:** [September 24, 2012, 6:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-city-ordinance-too-broad-to-be-constitutional/635693 "2012-09-24T18:20:23Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Page:** 2

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\
**Post date:** [September 26, 2012, 5:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-city-ordinance-too-broad-to-be-constitutional/635693/21 "2012-09-26T17:55:00Z")

</div>

> [@Acid\_Lamp](#):
>
> Probably too broad to stand but I’ve got no real problem with it either. It sounds like the type of thing cities do to insure that businesses stay happy. It isn’t discriminating on the basis of any protected class.

Strict scrutiny analysis is triggered not only by suspect classifications, but also by laws that burden fundamental rights (here, assembly and speech).

That means the law must serve a compelling government interest (keeping nutjobs from bothering tourists probably isn’t one) and be narrowly tailored to serve that interest (generally meaning it must be the least restrictive way of achieving the government’s goal).

[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-city-ordinance-too-broad-to-be-constitutional/635693.md?page=1)