Reference no: EM133943522

Assignment:

Metropolis owns and operates 20,000-seat Lois Lane Arena. Lane Arena is surrounded by a large parking lot. Entrance to the parking lot and arena is possible only through four admission gates, one on each side of the arena. Metropolis, through a municipal arena authority, rents Lane Arena to a professional basketball team, concert promoters, organizations that sponsor conventions, and other private groups or companies willing to pay the asked-for rental fee. The city's official rental policy, as stated in a resolution adopted by the Metropolis City Council, is that Lane Arena be available for rent by any individual, group, or entity for "any purpose that does not dishonor Metropolis or offend the sense of decency of its citizens."

A recent action by the Metropolis Arena Authority concerning Lane Arena generated considerable controversy. The controversy involving Lane Arena concerned the decision of the Metropolis Arena Authority to reject a request by the XHL ("The Xtreme Hockey League") to rent Lane Arena for a new professional hockey franchise, the Metropolis Puckers. In rejecting the request, the city cited the Puckers' plan to post on the scoreboard "body counts" (counts of opposing players disabled by the rough play of the Puckers), its sponsorship by "Rot Gut Whiskey," and its plan to have topless cheerleaders entertain fans between periods.

The XHL contends that the decision of Metropolis to reject its request to rent Lane Arena violates the First Amendment. Does it? Analyze:

1. First, what are the protections under the First Amendment?
2. Can you cite any case law that would have set precedent for your argument to support or reverse the rejection of the Puckers request?
3. You must at least cite the following landmark cases: Schenck v. U.S. (1919), Gitlow v. New York (1925), and a minimum of two additional First Amendment cases to support your position.