Freedom of Speech. For decades, New York City has had to deal with the vandalism and defacement of public property caused by unauthorized graffi ti. Among other attempts to stop the damage, in December 2005 the city banned the sale of aerosol spray-paint cans and broad-tipped indelible markers to persons under twenty-one years of age and prohibited them from possessing such items on property other than their own.

By May 1, 2006, fi ve people—all under age twenty-one—had been cited for violations of these regulations, while 871 individuals had been arrested for actually making graffi ti. Artists who wished to create graffi ti on legal surfaces, such as canvas, wood, and clothing, included college student Lindsey Vincenty, who was studying visual arts. Unable to buy her supplies in the city or to carry them in the city if she bought them elsewhere, Vincenty and others fi led a suit in a federal district court on behalf of themselves and other young artists against Michael Bloomberg, the city’s mayor, and others. The plaintiffs claimed that, among other things, the new rules violated their right to freedom of speech. They asked the court to enjoin the rules’

enforcement. Should the court grant this request? Why or why not? [Vincenty v. Bloomberg, 476 F.3d 74 (2d Cir. 2007)]