BERGER v. CITY OF SEATTLE - ACLU of Washington
BERGER v. CITY OF SEATTLE - ACLU of Washington
BERGER v. CITY OF SEATTLE - ACLU of Washington
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
<strong>BERGER</strong> v. <strong>CITY</strong> <strong>OF</strong> <strong>SEATTLE</strong><br />
[20] Applying the third prong, we conclude that Rule F.5<br />
also leaves alternative modes <strong>of</strong> expression available in cases<br />
where too many performers request the same site. The rule<br />
sets forth sixteen locations (a number <strong>of</strong> which were added<br />
pursuant to street performer requests). 31 The record shows that<br />
only 5-8 performers have sought permits at the same time—<br />
even during peak times. Berger does not <strong>of</strong>fer any evidence<br />
that a performer has been unable to perform in the Seattle<br />
Center due to this rule. His claim amounts to a demand for the<br />
right to perform in the Seattle Center at whatever venue he<br />
chooses. That claim cannot be reconciled with the city’s significant<br />
interest in maintaining order and patron convenience.<br />
A venue requirement is not a prohibition on speech, but a reasonable<br />
limit designed to further significant government interests.<br />
32 Rule F.5 passes all three prongs <strong>of</strong> the test for a valid<br />
time, place, or manner restriction on speech.<br />
E<br />
239<br />
Having determined that rules F.1, F.2, F.3.a, and F.5 pass<br />
constitutional review, we turn, finally, to Berger’s claims<br />
against Rule G.4, which applies to all Seattle Center entrants.<br />
This rule prohibits speech activities “within thirty (30) feet <strong>of</strong><br />
any captive audience; or within thirty (30) feet <strong>of</strong> any building<br />
entrance; or within thirty (30) feet <strong>of</strong> any person engaged in<br />
any scheduled event that is sponsored or co-sponsored by the<br />
Seattle Center.” The rules exempt city employees and<br />
licensed concessionaires. Berger asserts that the “ ‘captive<br />
31 During the period <strong>of</strong> public comment prior to final enactment <strong>of</strong> the<br />
2002 Campus Rules, see supra note 1, the proposed rule was amended to<br />
<strong>of</strong>fer more locations for street performances, in response to street performer<br />
requests. This underscores the Seattle Center’s efforts to tailor narrowly<br />
the rule to impose a reasonable limitation to conserve its interests,<br />
without unnecessarily hindering expression.<br />
32 Furthermore, persons like Berger can express their messages to<br />
patrons throughout the Seattle Center in other ways; Rule F.3.a only<br />
applies if they want to conduct street performances that may gather an<br />
audience.