context: In November 2005, the case law from this Court and the Supreme Court was ambiguous concerning whether asking demonstrators to remove such signs would be an impermissible infringement of their First Amendment rights. For example, there was no clear holding concerning whether such restrictions might be deemed content-based or content-neutral, a sometimes difficult and thorny question.
citation_a.signal: see also
citation_a.identifier: 469 F.3d 625, 630
citation_a.parenthetical: noting the fine distinction between a restriction to alleviate traffic concerns that is content-neutral if due to the distracting presence of pro testers with such signs, but content-based if the message was what angered and distracted drivers
citation_a.sentence: See Turner Broad. Sys. v. FCC, 512 U.S. 622, 642, 114 S.Ct. 2445, 129 L.Ed.2d 497 (1994) (“Deciding whether a particular regulation is content based or content neutral is not always a simple task.”); see also Ovadal v. City of Madison, Wis., 469 F.3d 625, 630 (7th Cir.2006) (noting the fine distinction between a restriction to alleviate traffic concerns that is content-neutral if due to the distracting presence of pro testers with such signs, but content-based if the message was what angered and distracted drivers).
citation_b.signal: see
citation_b.identifier: 512 U.S. 622, 642
citation_b.parenthetical: "Deciding whether a particular regulation is content based or content neutral is not always a simple task."
citation_b.sentence: See Turner Broad. Sys. v. FCC, 512 U.S. 622, 642, 114 S.Ct. 2445, 129 L.Ed.2d 497 (1994) (“Deciding whether a particular regulation is content based or content neutral is not always a simple task.”); see also Ovadal v. City of Madison, Wis., 469 F.3d 625, 630 (7th Cir.2006) (noting the fine distinction between a restriction to alleviate traffic concerns that is content-neutral if due to the distracting presence of pro testers with such signs, but content-based if the message was what angered and distracted drivers).