content-neutral restrictions: are they really?

The last post tried to tease out the distinction between content-neutral restrictions (eg. “no soliciting”) and content-based restrictions (eg. restriction on publication of maps detailing military base layouts) through some questions and some links to other reading. The question I’d like people to address for themselves is if “content-neutral” restrictions ever can be. Any restrictions that are set must be enforced, and unequal enforcement based on content suddenly turns a content-neutral restriction into a content-based one. So the question is then who does the enforcement? How is the enforcement carried out? Does everyone trust that the enforcement will be fair and truly be content-neutral?

So, can content-neutral restrictions on speech ever really be content-neutral? Are some kinds of restrictions more likely to be abused by those enforcing them than others?

Comments are closed.