In November 2001, three Inver Grove Heights property owners (also known as the "Pinkville 3,") painted the trees on their property neon colors and erected signs that included ones saying "Future city boundary of Pinkville. Trespassers will be killed and eaten. Sorry, no exceptions." and "Stop censorship by Royal Oaks Taliban wannabes!"

Why did the men take these actions? The three wanted to develop the land but had been fighting the city to get an access road built and to secure the necessary permits. Their messages, though intended for city hall, were aimed at the adjacent Broadmoor housing development, an upscale project that had received the proper permits.

In January 2002, Royal Oaks Holding Co. (the developers of Broadmoor) asked a district court judge to issue a temporary injunction to force the Pinkville 3 to remove their signs. The judge granted the request (though the neon trees could stay neon). In issuing the injunction, the judge said that "the First Amendment does not protect conduct that has affected the security, safety, privacy and peaceful use and enjoyment of property by the plaintiffs."

The Pinkville 3 refused to remove the signs and appealed the decision to the Minnesota Court of Appeals. As a judge on the Court, how would you rule in this case and why?

Each year the city of Seattle erects a performance venue on a city-owned pier along the waterfront for a concert series entitled “Music Under the Stars.” The venue includes a small stage, several rows of folding chairs, and bleachers. On weekend evenings during the summer popular music groups appear at this venue before large crowds. But the venue is unused during the day and on other evenings. A group of supporters of the nearby Public Farmers Market ask the city for permission to use the venue for a rally. The group is opposed to recently proposed changes at the market that will reduce the number of craft vendors and add more farmers’ tables and other food vendors. The city agrees to permit the rally, but only if the organizers are willing to pay the city $8,000, the amount it charges concert promoters for use of the facility. Group organizers say they cannot afford to pay this amount and claim the $8,000 fee is not fair. Concert promoters, they say, earn substantial revenues from ticket sales for the concerts held on the pier and can afford to pay a large fee. But group organizers argue they are holding a rally, will charge no admission, and will earn no revenue. The city refuses to grant permission for the rally. They justify their refusal on these three grounds:
a. The city will incur unreimbursed costs for clean-up and security.
b. The rally could become violent and the stage or other facilities could be damaged.
c. The outdoor rally will be noisy and this could disturb people living along the streets near the waterfront pier.

The organizers point out that
a. The city would bear the same costs if the rally were held in a public park some two miles away.
b. There is no indication that violence will occur.
c. A railroad track parallels the road running along the waterfront and noisy trains constantly chug and toot up and down this track. It is not a serene setting.
The rally organizers go to court to challenge the city’s decision.

Apply time, place and manner tests and forum analysis to the situation outlined above and determine whether the city’s action violates the First Amendment.