areas, schools, parks, or churches. Since the ordinance did not ban adult theaters altogether, the Court declared the law to be a ôtime, place, or mannerö restriction and analyzed it as such.
As Justice Rehnquist stated in his majority opinion, ôso-called æcontent-neutralÆ time, place, and manner regulations are acceptable so long as they are designed to serve a substantial governmental interest and do not unreasonably limit alternative avenues of communication.ö Clearly RentonÆs ordinance could not be described as ôcontent-neutralö because it treated adult theaters differently than other theaters. But Rehnquist found the ordinance fit this analysis because of the cityÆs motivation, which he described as an attempt to limit the ôsecondary effectsö of adult theaters rather than to discriminate based on their message. Therefore, even though the impact of the law limited free speech, the cityÆs intent made it permissible.
The city enacted the law, according to Rehnquist, to ôprevent crime, protect the city's retail trade, maintain property values, and generally æprotec[t] and preserv[e] the quality of [the city's] neighborhoods, commercial districts, and the quality of urban life,Æ not to suppress the expression of unpopular views.ö RehnquistÆs formulation has become known as the Secondary Effects Doctrine, and it has been much criticized.
Tribe (1988) described it as ôill-advised.ö The Court found the law content-neutral because the government defended ôthe rule with reasons other than its impact on the minds of listeners. Carried to its logical conclusion, the doctrine could gravely erode [F]irst [A]mendment protections.ö Gunther (1152) asked, ôMay a city, in order to preserve tranquility in the park, restrict all æinflammatoryÆ speeches, regardless of the point of view expressed?àAre not most content regulations premised on the æsecondary effectsÆ of the communication?ö
Indeed, base...