Most assembly disputes turn on the reason for a restriction. A rule aimed at a group's subject or viewpoint receives the most demanding review. A city may not permit labor rallies while denying antiwar rallies, nor may it charge a higher security fee because officials predict a hostile audience. By contrast, a content-neutral rule may coordinate competing uses of public space. Parade routes, sound limits, and advance notice can be valid when they serve a significant interest, are narrowly tailored, and leave adequate alternative channels for communication. Narrow tailoring in this setting does not always require the least restrictive possible rule, but government may not burden substantially more expression than its interest requires.

Permits are not automatically unconstitutional prior restraints. A permit system is more defensible when it uses clear, objective criteria, sets prompt deadlines, and gives administrators little opportunity to favor one message. A standard allowing an official to deny any event deemed "inappropriate" invites censorship; a rule limiting all downtown marches during rush hour addresses traffic rather than viewpoint. Officials also must distinguish protesters from people who independently commit unlawful acts. The misconduct of a few does not by itself justify dispersing an otherwise peaceful assembly.

Apply the doctrine in order: identify the place, determine whether the rule is content neutral, name the government's interest, and ask whether meaningful opportunities to assemble remain. If a town closes a street to every march during a bridge repair, the restriction likely concerns safety and access. If it reopens the street only for groups supporting the mayor, the same location rule becomes viewpoint discrimination. Assembly protects peaceful collective expression, not a general exemption from neutral laws governing harmful conduct.

Video lesson: First Amendment Rights of Assembly, Petition and Association: Module 4 of 5