I'd like to see a First Amendment challenge to this. From the article:
> [A]ccess to the main street will be restricted to people with company-issued bracelets
Justice White, for the Court:
In places which, by long tradition or by government fiat, have been devoted to assembly and debate, the rights of the State to limit expressive activity are sharply circumscribed. At one end of the spectrum are streets and parks, which "have immemorially been held in trust for the use of the public and, time out of mind, have been used for purposes of assembly, communicating thoughts between citizens, and discussing public questions." [0]
Restrictions based on time, place, and manner must satisfy three requirements [1]:
1. Content neutral
2. Narrowly tailored to serve a significant government interest
3. Leave open ample alternative channels of communication
The article is short in details, but #2 would seem to be the death blow. The broad, sweeping nature of a blanket restriction of access to the town's main thoroughfare is highly suspect.
But we're getting ahead of ourselves. First, the government is going to have to show how a three-day drunk fest meets the definition of a "significant government interest."
[0]Perry Educ. Ass'n v. Perry Local Educators' Ass'n, 460 U.S. 37, 45 (1983).
Sadly, after Kelo v. City of New London it seems that "significant government interest" can mean "anything which makes the government any amount of money".
Temporarily limiting access to a street, as for a festival, is not going to be seen by courts as an action "to limit expressive activity" – unless, perhaps, it was specifically scheduled to disrupt some usual expressive activity.
The community likely has other events, during the busy tourist season, with similar temporary restrictions of public spaces. Notably, one of the residents quoted as objecting to this event is a founder a summer music festival in the same town, which sells tickets, that appears to also convert usually-open public spaces into temporary paid-access venues.
Music festivals and other events are held in public spaces all the time. By the look of the town, the detour around the shut down areas might take a whole extra 20 seconds.
> [A]ccess to the main street will be restricted to people with company-issued bracelets
Justice White, for the Court:
In places which, by long tradition or by government fiat, have been devoted to assembly and debate, the rights of the State to limit expressive activity are sharply circumscribed. At one end of the spectrum are streets and parks, which "have immemorially been held in trust for the use of the public and, time out of mind, have been used for purposes of assembly, communicating thoughts between citizens, and discussing public questions." [0]
Restrictions based on time, place, and manner must satisfy three requirements [1]:
1. Content neutral
2. Narrowly tailored to serve a significant government interest
3. Leave open ample alternative channels of communication
The article is short in details, but #2 would seem to be the death blow. The broad, sweeping nature of a blanket restriction of access to the town's main thoroughfare is highly suspect.
But we're getting ahead of ourselves. First, the government is going to have to show how a three-day drunk fest meets the definition of a "significant government interest."
[0]Perry Educ. Ass'n v. Perry Local Educators' Ass'n, 460 U.S. 37, 45 (1983).
[1] Id.