Ben Cohen (of Ben and Jerry'sIcecreamfame) was recently arrested for participating in a "public demonstration" in Burlington, Vermont. He was ultimately arrested for violating the city's noise ordinance.Read these essays about what happened:

https://vtdigger.org/2018/03/04/ice-cream-mogul-ben-cohen-activists-arrested-jet-blasts-burlington/

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2018/03/03/ben-and-jerrys-co-founder-ben-cohen-arrested/392588002/

Using the four-part test fromUnited States v. O'Brien(1968) (and discussed in chapter 11 ofTedfordandHerbeck), explain your answer to this question:Did Burlington violate Ben's First Amendment rights?Even if he wasn't speaking, was he engaged in "symbolic expression" that is protected by the First Amendment?

Response:

I believe the government was right in enforcing a soundordinance because it affects the community and resulted in a number of complaints. Which answers step one the government has the power to establish and enforce sound ordinances. So moving on to step two, the government has a responsibility to its taxpayers which makes it a government interest when the people in the community complain about the noise an individualis making especially when it is a pre-establishedsound ordinance. However, it could also be in the governments best interest to have the F-35 built inBurlington, Vermont and would be convenientto stop the protest. But in this case, they were correct to stop the protest because of numerous people complaining in the community. If Ben Cohen were to express his views in a way that did not break the sound ordinance and Ibelieve he would have been allowed to express his opinions freely if he followed all Time, Place, Manner restrictions and therefore it follows the third stepin the O'Brien test. It does not seem to me that they were trying to suppress his right to free expression but were genuinelyresponding to the noise complaints. I am sure that Cohen's strategy of blasting the jet sound to the community was effective because they realized how unpleasant the sound was and would happen every dayif the vote for the jet testing passed but considering there were other waysfor him to protest without blasting the community with sounds (I looked it up, it is extremelyloud and irritating) I do not believe that his first amendment rights were violated. The first amendment does not give you the right to drive your truck around blasting deafeningjet sounds.

What could I have added? Any general comments on my response? Improvements?