WPC`  I 8XY=wVn,ÈЁpw T+2t"11Q T5B` ngrMnS߻%ﲉF !E = ZOn?xgY@g]a-Pz$M' @9KrZ; =hgY"ʮxE%;;pwT-%[ 8O=7Yv4' @ǪDo*3F,TE|몭<4ف@:]^P'D=sR_${釚PJr`Ak j&?ǭ{%.?c ;[]2} <Ё4džv#i"ATr1$=wy.BĹA,<.ߦZm' S&3LneqR\+FYB?83Vr#< % 0D 0(G U:o 0 UNo nT UF ^W U > N UB b7?&Efa!U05e{^ w4-AFP mN5X7b 0U  N% B%% 0+ 0,N- 0- 0k. 0K/ 0(0 01 01 0C2 02 03 04 0l5 0:6 07 07 08R9 0@%; 0e; 09< 0 = 0= 0> 0k? 00@ 0@ 00A 0 LA 0<+B 0gB 0>%C 0vcC 0`C 0`9D 0`D 0`D 0`YE 08E 0E 02F 0F 0:G 0Y+H 0_H 0 H 0jI 0WK B*L D/M D+4M 0_M D/N 0O 06O 0P 0:Q 0^XQ 0<QU6QU>(RU*fRbR9RRTGW9Z ]3_U8K``HP LaserJet 2100 Series PCL 5e,,,,0X(#$  0  ($<6X9`("Courier NewTT(d:2u$ !    =UXXdd=    0  (9 Z6Times New Roman Regular<6X9`("Courier NewTTXXx6X@DQX@<6X9`(CourierTTXXw6X@QX@Q 9Z+.Courier New RegularL:\JUDGES\Boudin\TEMPLATE\OPINIONS\ALDRICH.WPT\( 9Z+&Courier Regular*<6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpi- - u$  =UXXdd=    2    _ԀAppellantsdonotobjecttothisrequirement.  u$  =UXXdd=    1    _ԀTheCouncilhadintendedonJune9simplytodenyA&O's  applicationtoexpanditspreviouslicense.OnJune23theCouncil  concludedthattopermitsingingwouldnotconstituteanexpansion \ ofthelicense,andthereforeremovedthenosingingrestriction.TABLE A<\( 9Z+Courier       u$  =UXXdd=    5    _ԀIndeed,whentheSupremeCourthascitedtheWardnarrow  tailoringtestinsubsequentcases,ithasincludedthisimportant  qualification.SeeTurnerBroad.,520U.S.at213;UnitedStates \ v.EdgeBroad.Co.,509U.S.418,430(1993).-P-s   u$  =UXXdd=    3    _ԀBecauseplaintiffsareseekingdamages,theirchallengesto  restrictionsthatarenolongerineffect(thenosingingandno  amplificationrestrictions)arenotmoot.SeeCityofRichmondv. \ _J.A._Ԁ_Croson_ԀCo.,488U.S.469,478n.1(1989)(notingthat 2 expirationofordinancedoesnotmootcontroversybecause X plaintiffsmaybeentitledtodamagesifCity'sconductpursuantto . ordinancewasunlawful).Asfarastherecordreveals,theno   amplificationofinstrumentsrestrictionremainsinforce.IO-9:i+003|x < u$  =UXXdd=    8    _ԀTheuseofamplificationtoadjusttherelativevolumeand  tonalqualitiesofvoicesandinstrumentsiscalled"mixing." | u$  =UXXdd=    9    _ԀForthereasonsgiveninconnectionwiththetotalbanon  amplification,thebanonamplificationofinstrumentsdoessatisfy  Ward'scontentneutralityprong.&U N u$  =UXXdd=    10    _ԀAswehaveexplained,XUXXX"[_t]he_Ԁprincipalinquiryin  determiningcontentneutrality...iswhetherthegovernmenthas  adoptedaregulationofspeechbecauseofdisagreementwiththe \  messageitconveys."Ward,491U.S.at791.Thedistrictcourt  foundthat  8  the[City]didnotplacethe"nosinging"restrictionon 2 [A&O's]entertainmentlicensebecauseitdisagreedwith X themessageplaintiffssoughttoconvey.Rather,the . [City]imposedtherestriction...inordertoaddress   thecomplaintsdefendantsreceivedfrom[A&O's]   residentialneighborsconcerningtheexcessiveand `  disturbingnoiseemanatingfromtherestaurantduringthe 6   latenighthours. \    #XUXXXU#Appellantspointtonothingintherecordsuggestingthattheno   singingrestrictionwasmotivatedbythecontentofCasey's   performances,orbyspecificanimustowardsingingasopposedto d  otherformsofmusicalexpression.Wethereforeagreewiththe :  districtcourtthattherestrictioniscontentneutral.- -*+ (_2623  ..  u$  =UXXdd=    7    _Ԁ_Carew_ԄReiddoesassertthatWard"makesclearthatthe  lessrestrictivealternativeanalysishasnopartinthereviewof  atime,placeormannerregulation."Id.Webelievethis \ reasoningreflectsamisreadingofWard,whichrejectedany 2 requirementthatthemeanschosenbetheleastrestrictive.491 X U.S.at798.Warddoesnotsaythattheexistenceofless . restrictivealternativesplaysnopartinthenarrowtailoring   analysis.Indeed,wesaidinGlobeNewspaperthattheexistenceof   "numerousandobviouslessburdensomealternatives...iscertainly `  arelevantconsideration,"justnotacontrollingone.100F.3dat 6   18990(quotingCityofCincinnativ.DiscoveryNetwork,Inc.,507  \  U.S.410,418n.13(1993)). d  u$  =UXXdd=    4    _ԀWithoutthisqualification,theCourt'sfirststatement  abouttherequirementofnarrowtailoring("therequirementof  narrowtailoringissatisfiedsolongasthe...regulation \ promotesasubstantialgovernmentinterestthatwouldbeachieved 2 lesseffectivelyabsenttheregulation")wouldbelittlemorethan X arequirementthattheregulationatissueberationallyrelatedto . theidentifiedinterest.Tosaythataregulationpromotesa   substantialgovernmentinterestistantamounttosayingthatthe   governmentinterestwouldbeachievedlesseffectivelyabsentthe `  regulation.Therefore,ifthisfirststatementweretheextentof 6   thetestfornarrowtailoring,itwouldbeanextraordinarilyeasy  \  onetopass.Aregulationwouldhavetobeirrationalthatis,  2  failentirelytopromotetheinterestsitwasdesignedtopromote    Єnottosurmountthislowhurdle.Recognizingthat"narrowly  tailored"mustmeansomethingmorethannonirrational,theCourt  wentontoarticulateanadditionalrequirement.*G+M (_25   /%` ` hp x /23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *D+M (_24   ," hp x ,23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *A+M (_23  ` ) hp x )23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *>+M (_22   &hhp x &23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *;+M (_21   #p x #23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *8+M (_20  h  p x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *5+M (_19   pp x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *2+M (_18    x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  * (_1723  Ԁ*GM (_16   /%` ` hp x /23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *DM (_15   ," hp x ,23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *AM (_14  ` ) hp x )23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *>M (_13   &hhp x &23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *;M (_12   #p x #23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *8M (_11  h  p x 23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *5M (_10   pp x 23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  (2M &_9    x 23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5    u$  =UXXdd=    6    _ԀIndeed,XUXXXԀwhenappellantswerecitedforexcessivenoisein  Juneof1999itwasforviolatingthenoiseordinance,ratherthan  thenoamplificationrestrictionontheirlicense.#XUXXXU#( &_823  (GM &_7   /%` ` hp x /23   5+ ` hp x 5  (DM &_6   ," hp x ,23   5+ ` hp x 5  (AM &_5  ` ) hp x )23   5+ ` hp x 5  (>M &_4   &hhp x &23   5+ ` hp x 5  (;M &_3   #p x #23   5+ ` hp x 5  (8M &_2  h  p x 23   5+ ` hp x 5  (5M &_1   pp x 23   5+ ` hp x 5  &2M $_    x 23   5+ ` hp x 5  0.Normal>c$"Small Circle"0 <:Definition T<AA:Definition L , 5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 586Definition(''&H1      (&H2  (&H3  (&H4 XXX (&H5  (&H6  20Address8MM6Blockquote , , 5+ ` hp x 5   5+ ` hp x 5,*CITE,dl*CODEKe<6X9`(Courier NewKSf\  `&Times New RomanS42Emphasis64Hyperlink    <:FollowedHype    4go2Keyboard Ke<6X9`(Courier NewKSf\  `&Times New RomanS <:Preformatted/%  ,Kk %#/Ke<6X9`(Courier NewKSf\  `&Times New RomanS/%  ,Kk %#/<:zBottom of 7[(X7  ?g%2A`Arial?  Sf\  `&Times New RomanS7\(X7&  d dZ)1dxd'dxd<:zTop of For7^(X7  ?g%2A`Arial?  Sf\  `&Times New RomanS7\(X7Z)2dxd0KS.SampleKe<6X9`(Courier NewKSf\  `&Times New RomanS0.Strong 8dl6TypewriterKe<6X9`(Courier NewKSf\  `&Times New RomanS42Variable: 8HTML MarkupB      2 0CommentB  <6X9`(Courier New\  `&Times New Roman%2A`Arial- - / u$  =UXXdd=    11    _ XUXXXԀAsimilarsituationconfrontedtheSupremeCourtinWard.  There,NewYorkCityspecificallyconsideredavarietyofsolutions  toitsexcessivenoiseproblemandrejectedallofthemas \ ineffective.491U.S.at78587.#XUXX XU#jXUXXXU  u$  =UXXdd=    12    _ԀIfurthernotethatitisveryunlikelythatsucha  challengecouldsurvive,giventhatsuchschemesaregenerally  withinacity'spowers.FantasyBookShop,Inc.v.CityofBoston, \ 652F.2d1115,1121(1stCir.1981)(holdingthat"licensingof 2 routinecommercialoperationsinanattempttolimitnoise,traffic X anddisruptionisclearlywithinastate'sconstitutionalpower"). .  = u$  =UXXdd=    13    _ԀTherecorddoessuggestthattheCityhadaddressedits  concernsaboutnoisepollutioninanotherforum:aNoise&Nuisance  TaskForce.Thereferencetothistaskforceisfairlyambiguous, \ andneithersidepresentsfurtherinformationaboutitsconclusions 2 oritsactualpurpose.Furthermore,thereisnosuggestion,by X eitherside,thatthistaskforcedealtspecificallywiththe . problemposedbyA&O.Fromthelimitedinformationavailable,it   appearsthatthistaskforceaddressedonlygeneralconcerns. / u$  =UXXdd=    14    _ԀOriginally,theCitydidplaceanadditionalrestriction  onA&O'slicensebyforbiddingsinging.However,therecordis  clearthatthisrestrictionwasliftedshortlyafteritwasimposed \ andthatitwasimposedonthemistakenbeliefthattheprior 2 licensehadnotincludedpermissionforavocalist.  u$  =UXXdd=    15    _Ԁ_Contrary_Ԁtothemajority'sassertion,Idonotfindthat  theCityconsideredandrejectedthenoiseordinanceas  ineffective.Rather,Isimplyfindthatthenoiseordinanceis \ ineffective,apartfromanyconsiderationbytheCity. ) u$  =UXXdd=    *    _ XUXXXOftheDistrictofNewHampshire,sittingbydesignation.#XUXX XU#<4 9Z+ Courier New   !  _TRY,3'X3' Letter 3' Letter3'T ? * !X-XXXv-XX-     qOYOYUnitedStatesCourtofAppealsàv-  FortheFirstCircuit X-Xà  A') ` dE< ` A   pXUXXX-No.012600   @P P LAURELCASEYand_ASTERIX_ԀAND_OBELIX_,LLC, O   @Plaintiffs,Appellants, K  @tt)v.   @ CITYOFNEWPORT,RHODEISLAND S  @<< Defendant,Appellee. O A') ` dE<` A  @ APPEALFROMTHEUNITEDSTATESDISTRICTCOURT    FORTHEDISTRICTOFRHODEISLAND < @` ` [Hon.RonaldR._Lagueux_,U.S.DistrictJudge] 8 A') ` dE<` A  @'Before y   @@((TorruellaandLipez,CircuitJudges, %u and_McAuliffe_,o #  *      ׀DistrictJudge. K  A') ` dE<|!` A }!#       ThomasW.KellyforAppellants. b"%   Marc_DeSisto_forAppellee. $^'   *'ddd Xdd Xdd X(#(#,( dd ,( dd ,( dd +  <(#,<(# [ SI(#- U@37544U@SOctober16,2002 v)$/  RHCL*%0" U@37544 U@ R((#1  (* ! R+&1? qOY q q    8 U XXdd8*,X` XX*   XUXXpXU `  LIPEZ,CircuitJudge .Thiscaserequiresustoassess  theconstitutionalityofrestrictionsimposedbytheCityof x Newport,RhodeIsland(City),ontheperformanceofmusicat $t _Asterix_Ԁand_Obelix_Ԁ(A&O),aNewportrestaurant/nightclub.The   districtcourtrejectedaFirstAmendmentchallengetothe |  restrictionsmountedbyA&OandLaurelCasey,acabaretsingerwho ( x  performsatA&O,andenteredsummaryjudgmentfortheCityonthe $  groundthattherestrictionswerenarrowlytailoredtoservea   significantgovernmentalinterest.Concludingthatthedistrict ,|  court'snarrowtailoringdecisionlackssupportintherecord, we ( vacatethejudgmentandremandforfurtherproceedings.    I.  0 h ` A&Oislocatedat599ThamesStreetinNewport.The H propertyiszoned"limitedbusiness"andabutsaresidential  neighborhood.InJuneof1998A&Owasgrantedanentertainment P licensepermittingmusicalperformances,pursuanttoNewport,R.I., L Ordinancesch.5.68(PublicEntertainment).Theword"None"was   typednexttotheword"Amplification"ontheapprovedapplication. T!" OnJune4,1999,CaseyperformedatA&Owithhervoiceamplified, #P$ accompaniedbyanamplifiedbassandanunamplifiedpiano.That $& eveningA&OwascitedforviolatingtheCity'snoiseordinance. X&!( Newport,R.I.,Ordinancesch.8.12(NoiseAbatement)(setting (T#* maximumdecibellevelof75fordistrictszoned"limited )%, business").XUXXXUCaseyexplainedtheeventswhichgaverisetothe \+&. _*violationofthenoiseordinanceataCityCouncilhearingonJune  9: \ 8 ` Now,totellyouthetruth,itwasmyfault X lastFridaythatwewentoverthe...Noise . Ordinance.Apersonintheaudiencerequested   thatIsingfromanoperettaandIbeganto   singaportionofRinaldo.Thereareseveral `  highnotesthatgoabovehighnoteCin 6   R[i]naldoanditwasthosehighnotes  \  apparentlythatshotusoffthescale./ 2 ` x` x ThecomplaintagainstA&Owassubsequentlydismissed.#XUXXXUL#Asfaras   therecordreveals,A&Owasnotcitedforviolatingthetermsof :  itsentertainmentlicense. 6  ` OnJune9,1999,theCityCouncilheldahearingonA&O's  applicationforarenewedlicensethatwouldpermitamplification. > Residentsoftheneighborhoodvoiceddispleasurewiththenoise : emanatingfromA&Oduringmusicalperformances.TheCouncilvoted  torenewA&O'sentertainmentlicense,butwiththenoamplification B restrictionstillinplace,andwithanaddedprohibitionagainst > singing(whetheramplifiedornot).   ` OnJune18,1999,Caseyfiledacomplaintagainstthe F ! Cityinfederaldistrictcourtseekingdeclaratoryandinjunctive !B# reliefanddamagesunder42U.S.C.1983onthegroundthatthe #% nosingingandnoamplificationrestrictionsviolatedherrightto J% ' freeexpressionundertheFirstAmendment.OnJune23,1999,the &F") Councilremovedthenosingingrestriction,whichithadimposedin (#+  themistakenbeliefthatA&O'spreviouslicensehadincludedthe N*%- samerestriction. #  1      ׀Thenoamplificationrestriction,however,   remainedinforce.TheCouncilalsorequiredthatA&Okeepits \ doorsandwindowsclosedduringmusicalperformances. #  2      ׀AFirst X AmendedComplaintwasfiledonJuly9,1999,addingA&Oasa   plaintiff. `   ` OnMay1,2000,theCouncilagainrenewedA&O's  \  entertainmentlicense,thistimewithamplificationofsinging   allowed,butamplificationofmusicalinstrumentsforbidden.A d  SecondAmendedComplaintfiledonJuly31,2000,addedacount `  challengingthebanonamplificationofinstrumentseffectiveasof   June2000.Afterthepartiesfiledcrossmotionsforsummary h judgment,thedistrictcourtgrantedsummaryjudgmentfortheCity d onOctober24,2001,holdingthatthechallengedrestrictionswere  validtime,place,andmannerregulationsthatdidnotinfringe l upontheplaintiffs'FirstAmendmentrights.Plaintiffsfiledthis h timelyappealinwhichtheyaskustovacatethejudgmentofthe  districtcourtandordertheentryofajudgmentdeclaringthatthe p  City'slicenserestrictionsareunconstitutional,enjoiningtheir !l" enforcement,andleavingthequestionofdamagesforthedistrict "$ courtonremand. t$& OY       @  @` II.   >$ ` Wereviewthedistrictcourt'sgrantofsummaryjudgment x fortheCitydenovo,examiningtherecordinthelightmost $t favorabletoCaseyandA&Oanddrawingallreasonableinferencesin   theirfavor.Weaffirmthedistrictcourt'sdecisiononlyif |  "thereisnogenuineissueofmaterialfact"andtheCity"is ( x  entitledtojudgmentasamatteroflaw."SeeKnightsofColumbus, $  Council#94v.TownofLexington,272F.3d25,30(1stCir.2001).   Herewefocusonthelegalquestionofwhetherthechallenged ,|  restrictionsviolatetheFirstAmendment.Seeid. (  ` "Music,asaformofexpressionandcommunication,is  protectedundertheFirstAmendment."Wardv.RockAgainstRacism, 0 491U.S.781,790(1989).Expressionneednotincludewordsto , qualifyforFirstAmendmentprotection.TheSupremeCourthassaid  that"anarrow,succinctlyarticulablemessageisnotacondition 4 ofconstitutionalprotection,whichifconfinedtoexpressions 0 conveyinga'particularizedmessage,'wouldneverreachthe   unquestionablyshieldedpaintingofJacksonPollock,musicof 8!" ArnoldSchoenberg,orJabberwockyverseofLewisCarroll."Hurley "4$ v.IrishAmericanGay,LesbianandBisexualGroupofBoston,Inc., $& 515U.S.557,569(1995)(citationomitted).Thusitisnotjust <&!( Casey'sverbalexpression,butalsothemusicalsoundsheandher '8#*  bandproduce,thatisprotectedundertheFirstAmendment. )$,  ` Nevertheless,"thegovernmentmayimposereasonable   restrictionsonthetime,place,ormannerofprotectedspeech,"if \ thoserestrictionsare(1)contentneutral;(2)narrowlytailored X toserveasignificantgovernmentalinterest;and(3)leaveopen   amplealternativechannelsofcommunication.Ward,491U.S.at `  791.Wehavedescribedourreviewunderthisstandardas  \  "intermediatescrutiny."Nat'lAmusements,Inc.v.TownofDedham,   43F.3d731,736(1stCir.1995).Intermediatescrutinyis"more d  demandingthanthe'rationalbasis'standardthatisoftenusedto `  gaugetheconstitutionalityofeconomicregulations,"id.,butless   rigorousthanstrictscrutiny,whereweinquire"whethera h regulation'isnecessarytoserveacompellingstateinterestand d isnarrowlydrawntoachievethatend.'"Id.(quotingArkansas  Writers'ProjectInc.v.Ragland,481U.S.221,231(1987)).Ifa l regulationofspeechisnotnarrowlytailoredtoservea h significantgovernmentalinterest,itcannotbedeemed  constitutional.SeeTurnerBroad.Sys.,Inc.v.FCC,512U.S.622, p  668(1994)(vacatingdistrictcourtdecisionthatcontentneutral !l" regulationofspeechwasconstitutionalbecausefactsintherecord "$ failedtoestablishthatnarrowtailoringrequirementwasmet). t$& TheburdenofproofisontheCitytodemonstratethatits  &p!( restrictionsonspeecharenarrowlytailored.SeeBoardof '#*  Trusteesv.Fox,492U.S.469,480(1989)("[S]incetheStatebears x)$, theburdenofjustifyingitsrestrictions,itmustaffirmatively  establishthereasonablefitwerequire.")(citationomitted). \   ` Thedistrictcourtheldthatthechallengedrestrictions X werepermissibleundertheWardtest.Althoughchronologicallythe   firstrestrictionimposedonperformersatA&Owasthebanon `  singing,wethinkitmakesmoresensetobeginourlegalanalysis  \  withthenoamplificationandnoamplificationofinstruments   restrictions.Wedealwiththenosingingrestrictionlast. #  3      ׀  d     OY A.NoAmplification  `  $7  1.ContentNeutrality  (  @  @ |7 ` TheSupremeCourthassaidthat"[t]heprincipalinquiry  indeterminingcontentneutrality...iswhetherthegovernment L hasadoptedaregulationofspeechbecauseofdisagreementwiththe H messageitconveys.Thegovernment'spurposeisthecontrolling  consideration."Ward,491U.S.at791(citationomitted).Thusa P regulationthathasadisparateeffectondifferentstylesofmusic L mayneverthelessbeconsideredcontentneutraliftheintentbehind   theregulationisunrelatedtocontent.Thedistrictcourtfound T!" that"[t]he[City's]clearobjectiveinimposingthe[no #P$ amplification]restrictionwastoreducenoise...,apurpose  unrelatedtothecontentofthemessage[appellants]soughtto \ convey." Therebeingnosuggestionintherecordthattheno X amplificationrestrictionwasmotivatedbythecontentofCasey's   performances,therestrictionqualifiesascontentneutral. `    2.NarrowTailoring   \  < ` Onthequestionofnarrowtailoring,thedistrictcourt $  foundthatthenoamplificationrestrictioninforcebetweenJune   of1999andJuneof2000(banningamplificationofbothsingingand ,|  instruments)"servesdefendants'articulatedinterest"innoise ( reduction,andthatwithouttherestriction,"theCitywouldbe  unabletocontroleffectivelythevolumeofmusic,amplifiedor 0 unamplified,emanatingfrom[A&O]."Thecourtthendeclaredthat , thenoamplificationrestriction"doesnotburdenmorespeechthan  necessary,"andthat"plaintiffscouldstillconveytheir 4 respectivemessages,but...withouttheaidofanamplifier." 0 Insum,thedistrictcourtfoundthattheCitycouldnothave   achievedthedesiredreductioninnoisewithoutimposingtheno 8!" amplificationrestriction,andthattherestrictiondidnotburden "4$ substantiallymorespeechthanwasnecessarytoachievetheCity's $& objective. <&!(  ` Inanalyzingthedistrictcourt'sconclusionsregarding '8#* narrowtailoring,weareguidedbytheSupremeCourt'sopinionin )$, WardandouropinioninGlobeNewspaperCo.v.BeaconHill @+&. ArchitecturalCommission,100F.3d175(1stCir.1996).  Accordingly,webeginwithareviewofthoseopinions. \      a.Ward  X WC   ` InWard,theplaintiffshadchallengedNewYorkCity's   requirementthatperformersonacityconcertstageinCentralPark |  useamplificationequipmentandasoundtechniciansuppliedbythe ( x  city.491U.S.at784.TheCourtofAppealshadinvalidatedthe $  requirement,holdingthatthecity'ssoundamplificationguideline   wasnotnarrowlytailoredtofurtherthecity'sinterestin ,|  limitingthesoundemanatingfromthecity'sstagebecause"ithas ( not[been]shown...thattherequirementoftheuseofthecity's  soundsystemandtechnicianwastheleastintrusivemeansof 0 regulatingthevolume."Id.at797(quotingRockAgainstRacismv. , Ward,848F.2d367,371(2dCir.1988))(emphasisinoriginal).  TheSupremeCourtemphaticallyrejectedthis"leastintrusive 4 means"test:"ourcasesquiteclearlyholdthatrestrictionsonthe 0 time,place,ormannerofprotectedspeecharenotinvalid'simply   becausethereissomeimaginablealternativethatmightbeless 8!" burdensomeonspeech.'"491U.S.at797(quotingUnitedStatesv. "4$ Albertini,472U.S.675,689(1985)). $&  ` TheCourtthenwentontoreaffirmtheapplicablenarrow <&!( tailoringstandard,statingfirstthat"therequirementofnarrow '8#* tailoringissatisfiedsolongasthe...regulationpromotesa )$, substantialgovernmentinterestthatwouldbeachievedless @+&. effectivelyabsenttheregulation."Ward,491U.S.at799  (internalquotationmarksomitted).Asthedissentnotes,wehave \ citedthisstatementinsomeofourownFirstAmendmentcases.See X KnightsofColumbusv.TownofLexington,272F.3d25,33(1stCir.   2001);Nat'lAmusements,43F.3dat744.However,aswerecognized `  inGlobeNewspaper,100F.3dat18990,seeinfra,thisstatement  \  cannotbeseparatedfromtheSupremeCourt'sownqualificationof   themeaningofthisstatement,setforthinWard: d  8 ` Tobesure,thisstandarddoesnotmeanthata `  time,place,ormannerregulationmayburden 6 substantiallymorespeechthanisnecessaryto   furtherthegovernment'slegitimateinterests.  Governmentmaynotregulateexpressioninsuch h amannerthatasubstantialportionofthe > burdenonspeechdoesnotservetoadvanceits d goals.Solongasthemeanschosenarenot : substantiallybroaderthannecessaryto  achievethegovernment'sinterest,however,  theregulationwillnotbeinvalidsimply l becauseacourtconcludesthatthe B government'sinterestcouldbeadequately h servedbysomelessspeechrestrictive > alternative.M` x` x Ward,491U.S.at799800(emphasisadded)(citationsomitted).( #  4       XUXXXU p  #XUXX XUQ# ` Todemonstratetheimportanceofthisqualification, #  5      ׀the  CourtwentoninWardtoexplainwhythecity'ssoundamplification \ guidelinewasnot"substantiallybroaderthannecessarytoachieve X thegovernment'sinterest."Itnotedthat"[i]fthecity's   regulatoryschemehadasubstantialdeleteriouseffectonthe `  abilityofbandshellperformerstoachievethequalityofsound  \  theydesired,[plaintiff's]concernswouldhaveconsiderable   force."Id.at801.Itemphasizedthatthedistrictcourthad d  foundthattheCity'ssoundtechnician"give[s]thesponsor `  autonomywithrespecttothesoundmix...[and]doesallthathe   cantoaccommodatethesponsor'sdesiresinthoseregards."Id. h at802(internalquotationmarksomitted).Moreover,theCourt d foundnoevidencethattheCity'stechnicianwasunableto  implementproperlytheperformers'instructionsregardingsound l qualityormixing.Inlightofthosefindings,theCourtconcluded h that"thecity'sguideline[requiringthatperformersusethe  City'samplificationequipmentandsoundtechnician]hasno p  materialimpactonanyperformer'sabilitytoexercisecomplete !l" artisticcontroloversoundquality."Id.Thus,theCourtheld "$ thattheguidelinesatisfiedtherequirementofnarrowtailoring  becauseitwas"notsubstantiallybroaderthannecessarytoachieve \ thecity'slegitimateends."Id. XUXXXUԀ(internalquotationmarks X omitted).     b.GlobeNewspaper  `  :Z ` In#XUXX XUY#GlobeNewspaper,weacknowledgedthatWard's"not ( x  substantiallybroaderthannecessary"requirementispartofthe $  testfornarrowtailoring.ABeaconHillArchitecturalCommission   regulationbannedstreetfurniture,includingnewspaperboxes,in ,|  Boston'shistoricBeaconHillneighborhood.Thedistrictcourthad ( heldthattheregulationviolatedtheFirstAmendmentbecausethe  Commissionhad"shownnoreasonwhyitsinterestinpreservingthe 0 architecturalandhistoriccharacterofthe[neighborhood]cannot , bemetby,forexample,subjectingnewsracksandotherstreet  furnituretothesamereviewprocessasstorefrontmerchandise 4 racks."GlobeNewspaper,100F.3dat188(internalquotationmarks 0 omitted).    ` Wereversedonthegroundthattheregulationpromoteda 8!" substantialgovernmentinterestinaestheticsthatwouldhavebeen "4$ achievedlesseffectivelyabsenttheregulation,andthatitdidso $& withoutburdeningsubstantiallymorespeechthannecessary.Id.at <&!( 18889.Weexplainedthat '8#* 8 ` [w]hilethedistrictcourtcorrectly )$, consideredthefactthatlessburdensome j*%- alternativesexist,it[gave]toomuchweight @+&. tothatfactalone.Insodoing,it ,f'/ essentiallydiscount[ed]fromtheequation  Ward'sinquiryintowhetherthe[regulation]  promotestheCommission'sinterestssuchthat \ theywouldbeachievedlesseffectivelyabsent 2 the[regulation].X` x` x 4`Id.at189(internalquotationmarksandalterationsomitted).   Importantly,however,wedeclaredthat"lessburdensome `  alternativesmustbeconsideredinconnectionwiththeinquiryinto  \  whether,absentthechallengedregulation,thegovernment's   interestsareachievedlesseffectively,"andcautionedthat d  "courtsarenotmerelytodefertothegovernment'ssubjective `  judgment."Id.at190(emphasisadded).    ` WeobservedinGlobeNewspaperthatwhiletheCommission h "couldhaveadoptedalessdrasticsolution,"ithad"carefully d calculatedthecostsandbenefits"associatedwithpotential  solutionstotheproblemofstreetfurniture.Id.Weconcluded l that"[t]hepath[theCommission]chosetofolloweliminating h thenewsracksaltogether[was]themosteffectivesolutionaimed  atreducingvisualclutterandpreservingthe[neighborhood's] p  historiccharacter."Id.Inotherwords,whilenotengagingina !l" leastrestrictivemeansanalysis,weemphasizedthattheCommission "$ hadweighedthealternativesbeforeit,andwepointedoutthatan t$& obviousalternativetothebanonstreetfurniturerequiring  &p!( thatnewsracksbedesignedto"blendin"totheneighborhood '#* wouldhavebeenlesseffectiveinachievingtheCommission'santi x)$, clutterobjectivethananoutrightban.Id.at19091.Forour $+t&. purposes,theessentialpointisthatweemphasizedinGlobe  Newspaperthatthenarrowtailoringtestrequiresthedistrict \ courttoconsiderwhethertheregulationchallengedonFirst X Amendmentgroundssweepsmorebroadlythannecessarytopromotethe   government'sinterest.Thatconsideration,inturn,cannotbedone `  withoutsomeevaluationofthealternativemeasuresputinissueby  \  theparties.     c.TheDistrictCourt'sRationale  d  k XUXXXU ` Asexplainedsupra,thedistrictcourtfoundthebanon ,|  amplificationnarrowlytailoredbecause#XUXX XUl#(1)therestrictionserves ( theCity'sinterestinnoisereduction;(2)thisobjectivecould  notbeachievedwithouttherestriction;(3)therestrictiondoes 0 notburdenmorespeechthannecessary;and(4)Caseycouldstill , conveyhermessage,butwithouttheaidofanamplifier.Although  weconcludethattherecordsupportsthedistrictcourt'sfirst 4 propositionthattherestrictionadvancedtheCity'sinterestin 0 noisereductionitdoesnotsupporttheotherthree.Thus,the   districtcourtoverlookedWard'srequirementthatthemeanschosen 8!" cannotbe"substantiallybroaderthannecessarytoachievethe "4$ government'sinterest." XUXXXU491U.S.at800. $&   i.TheRestrictionServestheCity'sInterestinNoiseReduction  <&!( #XUXX XU9p#}p ` Weagreewiththedistrictcourtthatthebanon (T#* amplificationservestheCity'sinterestinnoisereduction,asit )%, limitsthevolumeofnoiseperformerscangeneratetothesound \+&. productioncapacityoftheirunamplifiedvoicesandinstruments.  Therestrictionwasimplementedtoprotectresidentialneighborsof \ A&O,andtheSupremeCourthasrecognizedthatthegovernmenthas X "asubstantialinterestinprotectingitscitizensfromunwelcome   noise,"aninterestthatis"perhapsatitsgreatestwhen `  governmentseekstoprotectthewellbeing,tranquility,and  \  privacyofthehome."Id.at796(internalquotationmarks   omitted).Nevertheless,aswehaveexplained,themerefactthat d  thebanonamplificationservestheCity'sinterestinnoise `  reductionisnotenoughtosatisfythenarrowtailoring   requirement. h   ii.TheCity'sObjectiveCouldNotBeAchieved d WithouttheRestriction H  ~uu ` Thedistrictcourtstatedthatwithouttheno  amplificationrestriction,"theCitywouldbeunabletocontrol ^ effectivelythevolumeofmusic...emanatingfrom[A&O]."This  Z statementimpliesthatlessburdensomealternativestothebanon  amplificationdonotexist.Buttherecorddoesnotsupportthe b ! districtcourt'sassertion.CaseyandA&OsuggestthattheCity's "^# noisereductionobjectivecouldbeachievedbyenforcementofthe # % City'snoiseordinance.SeeNewport,R.I.,Ordinancesch.8.12 f% ' (NoiseAbatement)(settingmaximumdecibellevelof75for 'b") districtszoned"limitedbusiness").Thismayormaynotbeso. ($+ However,asamatteroflogic,relianceonthenoiseordinance j*%- wouldbelessrestrictivethanatotalbanonamplificationbecause ,f'/ itwouldpermittheuseofamplifiersatlevelsthatdidnotexceed  thedecibellimitsetinthenoiseordinance.YettheCitydidnot \ explainwhyitcouldnothavereliedonthislessburdensome X alternativetothenoamplificationrestriction.SeeGlobe   Newspaper,100F.3dat19091. `    iii.TheRestrictionDoesNotBurdenMoreSpeechThanNecessary   \  { ` Thereisnosupportintherecordforthedistrict $  court'sconclusionthattherestrictiondoesnotburdenmorespeech   thannecessarytoachievetheCity'sinterestinpreventing ,|  excessivenoise.SeeWard,491U.S.at802(upholdingregulation ( thatwasnotsubstantiallybroaderthannecessary).Neitherinthe  districtcourt'sopinionnorintherecordisthereanyexplanation 0 ofwhythealternativeadvancedbytheplaintiffsenforcementof , theCity'snoiseordinancewouldnothaveachievedtheCity's  interestsaseffectivelyastheamplificationban,while 4 substantiallydiminishingtheburdenonspeech.Thisapproachis 0 insharpcontrasttoWard,wheretheCourtcitedspecific   alternativestheCityhadrejectedanditsreasonsfordoingso. 8!"  ` InWard,theCourtexplainedthatNewYorkhadrejected "4$ theideaofafixeddecibellimitforallperformersusingthe $& bandshell"becausetheimpactonlistenersofasingledecibel <&!( levelisnotconstant,butvariesinresponsetochangesinair '8#* temperature,foliage,audiencesize,andlikefactors."Id.at )$, 786.Thecityhadalsorejectedtheideaofusingitsown @+&. OY    techniciantooperateequipmentsuppliedbytheperformer,"because  thecity'stechnicianmighthavehaddifficultysatisfyingthe \ needsof[performers]whileoperatingunfamiliar,andperhaps X inadequate,soundequipment."Id.;seealsoGlobeNewspaper,100   F.3dat190("Designingthenewsrackstobetter'blendin'... `  wouldpromotetheCommission'sinterestbyreducingtheir  \  'unsightliness.'Itwouldnotachieve,however,aseffectivea   reductionin'thevisualclutter....'").Bycontrast,the d  districtcourt'sopiniongivesnoindicationastowhytheCityof `  Newportcouldnothavereliedonthenoiseordinancetoachieveits   objective. h  ` Wedonotseehowthe"substantiallybroaderthan d necessary"determinationcouldbemadeinthiscaseabsentsome  considerationofthealternativeofenforcingthenoiseordinance. l Farfrombeingahypotheticalpossibilityconjuredupby h appellants,thenoiseordinanceisonthebooks,isunmistakably  designedtoaddresstheproblemofexcessivenoise,andhasbeen p  enforcedagainstA&Ointhepast.Thereisnoindicationinthe !l" recordthatsuchenforcementisnoteffectiveinachievingthe "$ City'snoisereductionobjective.; #  6      ׀ t$&  ` Weemphasize,however,thattheCityneednotprovethat  &p!( thenoamplificationrestrictionistheleastrestrictivemeansof '#* achievingitsobjectiveofcontrollingexcessivenoise.Anysuch  requirementisclearlyproscribedbytheprecedents.Ward,491 \ U.S.at798.However,ifenforcingthenoiseordinancewould X effectivelyachievetheCity'snoisereductionobjective,andthe   burdenonspeechimposedbythenoamplificationrestrictionis `  substantiallybroaderthantheburdenthatwouldbeimposedby  \  enforcingthenoiseordinance,thenoamplificationrestrictionmay   notmeetthenarrowtailoringtest. d   ` Inescapably,theapplicationofthenarrowtailoringtest `  entailsadelicatebalancingjudgmentbythecourt.SeeBlountv.   SEC,61F.3d938,946(D.C.Cir.1995)(regulationsofspeechmust, h "byvirtueofthenarrowtailoringrequirement...,strikean d appropriatebalancebetweenachieving[thegovernment's]goalsand  protectingconstitutionalrights");Hendersonv.Lujan,964F.2d l 1179,1184(D.C.Cir.1992)("Despitetheseeminglymathematical h characterofthemetaphor,theSupremeCourtinfactapplies[the  narrowtailoringrequirement]asabalancingtest...."). First p  Amendmentplaintiffsoftenarguethataregulationsweepstoo !l" broadlyandthatlessburdensomealternativesareavailableto "$ accomplishthegovernment'sobjective.Thegovernmentresponds t$& thattheproposedalternativeswouldbelesseffectiveinachieving  &p!( itsobjective.Thetrialcourtisthenrequiredtobalancethe '#* competinginterestsunderthenarrowtailoringstandard,mindful x)$, thatthegovernmentisnotrequiredtochoosetheleastintrusive $+t&. meansofadvancingitsinterests.Here,however,thecourtdidnot  engageinanybalancinganalysis,deferringinsteadtothe \ unsupportedassertionoftheCitythatthenoamplification X restrictioninA&O'slicensewastheonlyeffectivemeansof   addressingthenoiseproblem. `   ` TheCitycallstoourattentionCarewReidv.  \  MetropolitanTransportationAuthority,903F.2d914(2dCir.1990),   whichheldthatabanontheuseofamplifiersonNewYorkCity d  subwayplatformswasnarrowlytailoredtothecity'sinterestsin `  "eliminationofexcessivenoise"and"publicsafety"(theconcern   wasthatamplifiedmusicinterfered"withpolicecommunications, h thepublicaddresssystem...andtheworkoftrackcrews").Id. d at917.Thedistrictcourthadenjoinedenforcementoftheban,  findingthat"thegoalofnoisereductioncouldbeachievedby l enforcingthe85decibellimit"applicabletomusicalperformances h onsubwayplatforms.Id.TheSecondCircuitheldthatthe  districtcourthad"improperlyreliedontheperceivedavailability p  ofalessrestrictivealternativetotheamplifierbantheuse !l" ofdecibelmeters."Id.at91718.Itexplainedthattheproposed "$ alternativewouldbeimpractical:"Thenoiseregulationrequires t$& thatdecibelmeasurementsbetakenatadistanceoffivefeetfrom  &p!( themusic'ssource.Thedifficultiesinmakingsuchmeasurements '#* onacrowdedsubwayplatformwithridersrushingonandofftrains x)$, areapparent...."Id.at918. $+t&.  ` AlthoughacrowdedsubwayplatforminNewYorkCityseems  farremovedfromaresidentialneighborhoodinNewport,Rhode \ Island,theremightbepracticalproblemsoradministrativeburdens X thatcomplicatetheenforcementofanoiseordinanceinthis   quietersetting.Suchconsiderationsarecertainlyrelevantin `  evaluatingwhetheraproposedalternativewouldeffectivelyachieve  \  theCity'sobjective.Seeid.However,thisrecordissilenton   anypracticalproblemsoradministrativeburdensthatwouldrender d  enforcementofthenoiseordinanceanineffectivealternativeto `  thenoamplificationrestriction.% #  7      ׀    ` Nevertheless,thedissentstatesthattherecord h establishesthat"thenoiseordinanceclearlyfailedtoaddressthe d community'sconcernsand,assuch,cannotbeconsideredan  effectivealternative."Respectfully,thatisnotso.The l scatteredreferencestotheNoiseOrdinanceattheCityCouncil h meetingonJune9,1999wherethelicenserestrictionswereadopted  donotamounttoevidencethatenforcementofthenoiseordinance p  wasconsideredandrejectedasineffective.Hereisthesumand  substanceofthesereferences: \ Fc   ` FcE"0   CouncilorSardella,questioningtherequirement X thatanapplicantlistthespecifictypesof . instrumentsthatperformerswouldbepermittedto   play,said:"entertainmentisentertainmentand   aslongassomeonedoesn'tviolatethenoise `  ordinanceIdon'tbelieveweshouldbe 6   restrictingthemtowhethertheyhaveaflute  \  player,aguitarplayer,oravocalist."FcE~݌ 2  (# (# Ќ   ` Fc   ` Fc"0   Caseyexplainedthat"itwasmyfaultlastFriday   thatwewentoverthe...noiseordinance"Fc݌d  (# (# Ќ   ` Fc   ` Fc"0   DougStevenson(aneighbor)said:"Idon'teven `  thinkit'sanissueofviolationofanyNoise 6 Ordinance,it'sjustthefactthatwedidn'thave   thisnoisebeforeandnowwedoandwehaveto  dealwithitandwedon'tlikeit."Fc/݌h (# (# Ќ   ` Fc   ` Fcߥ"0   Ms.Tarigo(unidentified)said:"lastweeksowe d couldadheretothatCityordinanceofthe : decibelsof65"(thelanguagethatprecedesthese  wordsisillegible).`Fcߥ݌ (# (# Ќ   ` Aswehaveexplained,atthedistrictcourttheburden B wasontheCitytoshowthatthenoamplificationrestrictiondid > notburdensubstantiallymorespeechthannecessarytoachievethe  City'snoisereductionobjective.SeeFox,492U.S.at480.The F ! Citydidnotmeetthisburdensimplybysubmittingevidencethat !B# thenoiseordinancewasmentionedatthemeetingatwhichtheno #% amplificationrestrictionwasadopted.Indeed,theCityitselfhas J% ' notarguedeitherinitsmotionforsummaryjudgmentoron &F") appealthattheCouncilconsideredthealternativeofenforcing (#+ thenoiseordinanceandconcludedthatitwouldbeineffective. N*%- NorhastheCitysupplementedtherecordoftheCouncilmeeting +J'/ withevidencesupportingitsviewthatthenoamplification  restrictionisnarrowlytailored,asitwasfreetodoatthe \ districtcourt. X  ` Thedissentiscorrectthatresidentialneighborswere   unhappyaboutthenoiseemanatingfromA&O.However,itismere `  speculationtosaythatenforcingthenoiseordinancewasan  \  ineffectivealternativetothenoamplificationrestrictionwhen   thereisnoindicationintherecordthattheCityhadmadeany d  attempttoenforceitbeyondtheoneincidentdocumentedinthe `  record.    iv.CaseyCouldStillConveyHerMessageWithoutAmplification  h  ` Asitsfinalbasisforconcludingthatthebanon 0 amplificationwasnarrowlytailored,thedistrictcourtstated , thatappellants"couldstillconveytheirrespectivemessages,  but...withouttheaidofanamplifier."Appellantsrespond, 4 withthesupportofuncontradictedaffidavits,thatamplifiersare 0 notusedsimplytotakea"message"andmakeitlouderwhile   holdingconstantitscontent.Tobesure,amplificationmaybe 8!" necessarytoconveyamessage,andappellantsadvancetheargument "4$ thatamplificationisrequiredforCasey'svoicetobeheardover $& thechatterofA&O'spatrons.However,asappellantspointout, <&!( amplifiersarealsousedtocreatenew"messages"thatcannotbe '8#* conveyedwithoutamplificationequipment.Amplificationenables )$, performerstoboosttherelativevolumeofquietinstruments,such @+&. asthebassandthelowerregistersofthehumanvoice,andto  adjustthetonalqualitiesofvoicesandinstrumentswithout \ necessarilyincreasingtheoverallvolumeoftheperformance. #  8      ׀ X Muchmodernmusicsimplycannotbeperformedwithouttheuseof   amplifiers.Thusthebanonamplificationhasadirectand `  immediateeffectontheexpressionatissue.Therecordtherefore  \  doesnotsupportthedistrictcourt'sconclusionthatappellants   "couldstillconveytheir...messages"withoutamplification. d  Withoutamplification,someofthemessagesarenotconveyedat `  all.    ` TheSupremeCourtobservedinWardthat"[i]fthecity's h regulatoryschemehadasubstantialdeleteriouseffectonthe d abilityofbandshellperformerstoachievethequalityofsound  theydesired,[plaintiff's]concernswouldhaveconsiderable l force."491U.S.at801.TheCourtemphasizedthattherewasno h evidenceintherecordthatthequalityofperformanceshadbeen  impairedbytheCity'sregulatoryscheme.Onthecontrary,it p  declaredthat"thecity'sguidelinehasnomaterialimpactonany !l" performer'sabilitytoexercisecompleteartisticcontrolover "$ soundquality."Id.at802.Here,incontrast,thereisevidence t$& ofa"deleteriouseffect"onthe"qualityofsound"Caseyhasbeen  &p!( abletoproduce.Indeed,theregulationprecludedoutrightthe '#* performanceofcertainsongsthatrequirehertosingquietlyina  lowregisterwithamplification. \  ` Insum,weconcludethatthedistrictcourterredinits X applicationoftheWardtestfornarrowtailoringtothefactsof   thiscase.Therecorddoesnotsupportthedistrictcourt's `  conclusionthattheCity'smeanswerenotsubstantiallybroader  \  thannecessarytoachievethegovernment'sinterest. XUXXXU      3.AlternativeChannels  d  e ` Althoughthefailureoftherecordtosupportthe ,|  districtcourt'sconclusionthatthenoamplificationrestriction ( isnarrowlytailoredtoserveasignificantgovernmentalinterest  requiresthatwevacatethejudgmentbelow,weneverthelessnote 0 thatthebanonamplificationatA&Odoes#XUXX XU.#"leaveopenample , alternativechannelsofcommunication,"andthussatisfiesthe  thirdprongoftheWardtest.491U.S.at790(internalquotation 4 marksomitted). XUXXXUAppellantsassertunpersuasivelythat"[t]hereis 0 noalternativeforLaurelCaseytofindameanstoconveyher   artisticmessagetoanaudienceofover90peopleonaSaturday 8!" nightinarestaurantinNewportwithouthavingthebenefitofan "4$ amplifier."However,therestrictionsimposedonperformersatA&O $& donotpreventCaseyfromperformingatotherestablishmentsin <&!( Newportunencumberedbythesamerestrictions.#XUXX XUI# XUXXXU '8#*   \+&. B.NoAmplificationofInstruments    ` Thedistrictcourtheldthatappellantslackedstanding x tochallengetherestrictiononamplificationofinstruments(but $t notsinging)thathasbeeninforcesince2000.Inthedistrict   court'sview,whichtheCityreflectsinitsbrief,CaseyandA&O |  areendeavoringtochallengethenoamplificationrestriction"on ( x  behalfof"othermusicians.Wedisagreewiththischaracterization $  ofappellants'claims,andholdthatbothCaseyandA&Ohave   standingtoassertviolationsoftheirownFirstAmendmentrights. ,|   ` #XUXX XU#"ThebasicrequirementsforArticleIIIstandingarethat ( thepetitionerissomeonewhohassufferedoristhreatenedby  injuryinfacttoacognizableinterest,thattheinjuryis 0 causallyconnectedtothedefendant'saction,andthatitcanbe , abatedbyaremedythecourtiscompetenttogive."SaveOur  Heritage,Inc.v.FAA,269F.3d49,55(1stCir.2001). XUXXXUAsa 4 singerwhoperformswithaband,Casey's"expression"encompasses 0 morethanjusthervoice.Itisthemusicsheproducesin   conjunctionwithherbandthatconstitutesherexpression.Ifthe 8!" qualityofCasey'sperformancehasbeenaffectedbythebanonthe "4$ amplificationofheraccompanists,shehassufferedaninjuryin $& facttoacognizableinterest(herinterestinperforminghermusic <&!( asshewishestoperformit);theinjuryiscausallyconnectedto '8#* therestrictiontheCityplacedonA&O'sentertainmentlicense;and )$, thedistrictcourthasthepowertoremedytheinjury(byenjoining @+&. enforcementoftherestrictiononamplificationofinstruments).  Caseythereforehasstandingtochallengetherestrictiononthe \ amplificationofinstruments.Seeid. X  ` A&Oalsohasstandingtochallengetherestrictiononthe   amplificationofinstruments.If,asappellantsallege,the `  restrictionhasimpairedthequalityofCasey'sperformances,A&O  \  hassufferedaninjuryinfacttoacognizableinterest(a   reductioninthequalityoftheentertainmentitoffersits d  customers);theinjuryiscausallyconnectedtotherestrictionon `  itsentertainmentlicense;andthedistrictcourthasthepowerto   remedythesituation(bydeclaringtherestriction h unconstitutional).Seeid.#XUXX XU# XUXXXU d  ` Despiteconcludingthatappellantslackedstandingto  challengethebanonamplificationofinstruments,thedistrict l courtwentontodeclarethatevenifappellantsdidhavestanding, h itsanalysisofthetotalbanonamplificationappliedequallyto  thebanonamplificationofinstruments.Wehaveheldthatthe p  districtcourterredinfindingthatthetotalbanonamplification !l" wasnarrowlytailoredtoserveasignificantgovernmentalinterest. "$ Weconcludelikewisewithrespecttothebanonamplificationof t$& instruments.Inrestatingitsconclusionaboutthetotalbanon  &p!( amplification,withoutadditionalanalysis,thedistrictcourt '#* repeateditserrorofneglectingtoconsidertheviabilityofthe x)$, #XUXX XU#lessburdensomealternativeofenforcingtheCity'snoise $+t&. ordinance.Wethereforeremandtothedistrictcourtfor  considerationofappellants'challengetothenoamplificationof \ instrumentsrestrictionundertheframeworkdescribedinthis X opinion. #  9          C.NoSinging  `   ` Thedistrictcourtfoundthatthenosingingrestriction ( x  inforcefortwoweeksinJuneof1999wasavalidregulationof $  speech.CaseyandA&Oarguethatthenosingingrestrictionwas   "faciallyinvalid,"asit"hadtheeffectofutterlysuppressing ,|  Ms.Casey'srighttoperform."Theyalsoassertthatthereisno ( rationalbasis"fordiscriminatingbetweenoneformofinstrument,  thehumanvoice,"and"otherinstrumentssuchaspianosand 0 guitars." ,  ` Frankly,wecanmakelittlesenseofappellants'facial  invalidityargument,atleastastheyexpressit.Theyseemto 4 arguethatabanonsingingcouldneverbepermissibleunderany 0 circumstances.Statedsosweepingly,thatisanuntenable   proposition.Appellantsalsomakeanequallyunavailingargument 8!" thatthenosingingrequirementisnotcontentneutral,hopingto "4$ invokestrictscrutiny." #  10      ׀SeeArkansasWriters'Project,481U.S. $& at231(requiringstatetoshowthatcontentbasedregulationof  speechis"necessarytoserveacompellingstateinterest"and \ "narrowlydrawntoachievethatend")(citationomitted).However, X appellantsdoseemtoargue,barely,thatthenosinging   restrictionsuffersfromthesamenarrowtailoringinfirmitiesthat `  afflicttherestrictionsonamplification. Basedonouranalysis  \  supra,weconcludethattherecorddoesnotsupportthedistrict   court'sholdingthatthenosingingrestrictionisnarrowly d  tailoredtoserveasignificantgovernmentalinterest.Thusthe `  nosingingrestrictiontoomustbeaddressedbythedistrictcourt   onremand.  h   III.  d  ` TomeetthenarrowtailoringrequirementsetoutinWard, , theCitywasrequiredtoestablishthatthechallengedrestrictions  donotburdensubstantiallymorespeechthannecessarytoachieve 4 itsinterestinnoisereduction. XUXXXUTheCityhasfailedtocarryits  burdenonthispoint.Therecordisdevoidofanyexplanationof \ #XUXX XU#whythealternativeofenforcingtheCity'snoiseordinancean X alternativethatisonthebooks,isdesignedtoaddressthe   problemofexcessivenoise,andhasbeenenforcedagainstA&Oin `  thepastwouldnothaveachievedtheCity'sobjectiveas  \  effectivelyastheamplificationban,whileplacingasubstantially   lesserburdenonspeech. XUXXXUԀAbsentsomeevidenceofthisinthe d  record,thedistrictcourthadnobasisfordecidingwhetherthe `  challengedrestrictionsare,orarenot,substantiallybroaderthan   necessarytoachievetheCity'sobjective. h  ` Weconclude,therefore,thatthedistrictcourterredin d itsapplicationofthetestfornarrowtailoringestablishedin  WardandappliedinGlobeNewspaper,andhencethejudgmententered l fortheCitymustbevacated.However,thereisnobasisinlaw h fororderingtheentryofjudgmentforappellants.Theproper  narrowtailoringanalysisremainstobedoneand,dependingonthe p  outcomeofthatanalysis,damagesissuesmustberesolved.We !l" thereforeremandtothedistrictcourtforfurtherproceedings "$ consistentwiththisopinion. t$&  `  Judgementvacated.Remandedforfurtherproceedings  &p!( consistentwiththisopinion. #XUXX XUs# '8#* @` `  ConcurringandDissentingOpinionsFollow  )%, # ` McAULIFFE,DistrictJudge(concurring). Iagreewithand  concurinJudgeLipezsreasoningandconclusionthattherecord x requiresfurtherdevelopmentandadditionalnarrowtailoring $t analysisremainstobedone.However,Iamlessconfidentthan   JudgeLipezthattheCityofNewportsamplificationbaniscontent |  neutral.TherecorddisclosesthattheCityssoleintentin ( x  imposingthelicenserestrictionsatissueherewastolimitthe $  volumeofsoundemanatingfromAsterix&Obelix,inaneffortto   accommodateitsresidentialneighbors.But,bybanningall ,|  amplifiedmusic,theCityeffectively,albeitunwittingly,banned ( awholehostofmusicalinstrumentsand,necessarily,theunique  musicalmessagesthatcanonlybeproducedbythoseinstruments. 0 And,ironically,thebanwillnotnecessarilyinsureanacceptable , levelofnoisecontrolCaseycould,forexample,singtothe  accompanimentofsnaredrums,butnotamplifiedflutes. 4  ` Intheworldofmodernmusic, amplifiedisnot 0 synonymouswith madelouder.Electronicmusicalinstrumentscan   onlyproducesoundthroughaprocessofelectronicamplification, 8!" butthoseinstrumentsarenotinherentlylouderthanacousticor "4$ unamplifiedinstruments.Amodernsynthesizer,forexample,can $& makesoundonlybymeansofelectronicamplification,yetthat <&!( amplifiedinstrumenteasilyandfaithfullymimicsthesounds '8#* producedbyawiderangeofacousticinstrumentssuchaspianos, )$, harps,flutes,acousticguitars,violins,drums,etc.Moreover, @+&. thesynthesizercanreproducethosemusicalsoundsassoftlyand  quietlyasdesired.Yet,thesynthesizerfallswithintheCitys \ ban.AnelectronicallyamplifiedAeolianHarpcanproducethesame X  softfloatingwitcheryofsoundasnaturesown,butthevolume   ismoreeasilycontrolledontheamplifiedversion. `   ` So,whiletheCitydidnotimposetheamplificationban  \  becauseofanyovertdisagreementwiththemessagesconveyedby   amplifiedmusicalinstruments,thus,arguably,makingtheban d  contentneutral,Ibelievethebanissufficientlyoverreachingto `  giverisetowhattheSupremeCourtreferredtoinWardv.Rock   AgainstRacism,491U.S.781,792(1989),asanargumentof much h force,i.e.,thattheCityhasimpermissiblyinterferedwiththe d artisticjudgmentofperformersatA&O.InWard,theCourtnoted  that [a]nygovernmentalattempttoservepurelyestheticgoalsby l imposingsubjectivestandardsofacceptablesoundmixonperformers h wouldraiseseriousFirstAmendmentconcerns....Id.at793.  Here,theCitysregulationofexpressiveactivitywithinA&Omay p  wellnotbecontentneutralbecauseitappearstoimposesubjective !l" standardsofinstrumentselectiononperformersandmaynotbe "$  justifiedwithoutreferencetothecontentoftheregulated t$& speech,id.at791(quotingClarkv.CommunityforCreativeNon  &p!( Violence,468U.S.288,293(1984)),notwithstandingtheabsenceof '#* officialdisagreementwiththeartisticmessagesconveyedby x)$, amplifiedinstruments.SeePoliceDept.ofChicagov.Mosley,408 $+t&. U.S.92(1972)(holdingthatpicketingbanimposedtoprevent  disruptionofschoolwasnotcontentneutralwhenthebanallowed \ picketingonsometopicsbutnotothers);Careyv.Brown,447U.S. X 455(1980)(same).    ` ThegovernmentalregulationinWardwasnotintendedto, `  anddidnotinfact,interferewithartisticexpression.Buthere,  \  theregulationsinglesoutcertainmusicalinstrumentsandthus    hasadirectandimmediateeffectontheexpressionatissue,by d  suppressingit,anddoessowithoutanyapparentjustification, `  giventhesubstantialdisparitybetweenthebansexpansivereach   andthenoisecontrolintereststhebanpurportstoserve. h  ` Withthatreservationthatthelicenserestrictionmay d notbecontentneutralIjoininJudgeLipezsopinion.   8 U Xd XXd8h# ` TORRUELLA,CircuitJudge(Dissenting). Withduerespect,  Idisagreewithmycolleaguesregardingwhetherthelicensesin x questionarenarrowlytailored.Whilethemajoritycorrectly $t recountstheholdingsofbothWardv.RockAgainstRacism,491U.S.   781(1989),andGlobeNewspaper,Co.v.BeaconHillArchitectural |  Commission,100F.3d175(1stCir.1996),itoverstatestheburden ( x  forfindingthatatime,place,andmannerrestrictionisnarrowly $  tailored.Infact,despitepronouncementstothecontrary,the   majorityessentiallyelevatesthenarrowlytailoredrequirementto ,|  somethingapproachingaleastrestrictivemeanstestbyrequiring ( thatproposedalternativesalwaysbeconsidered.Themajorityalso  ignorescrucialevidenceintherecordwhichsupportsthedistrict 0 court'sfindingthatthelicensingrequirementwasnarrowly , tailored.Myownreviewoftheevidenceandtherelevantlawleads  metotheconclusionthattheCityhasmetitsburdenofshowing 4 thatthelicensesarenarrowlytailored. 0  ` ThemajorityunderstandsGlobeNewspaperasimposinga   requirementoncourtstoconsiderlessburdensomealternativesin 8!" decidingwhetherachallengedregulationisnarrowlytailored.In "4$ fact,thecourtdidsay,asthemajoritypointsout,that"less $& burdensomealternativesmustbeconsidered."100F.3dat190. <&!( However,thisstatementcanonlybeunderstoodincontext.In '8#* GlobeNewspaper,thedistrictcourthadfoundthatageneralbanon )$, streetfurniture,includingnewspaperracks,inBeaconHillwasnot @+&. narrowlytailoredbecauselessburdensomealternativesexisted.  100F.3dat188.Inoverturningthatdecision,thecourtpointed \ outthatthosealternativeregimeshadbeenconsideredandrejected X asineffective.Id.at18889.i #  11      ׀Simply,thelowercourtrested   itsdecisionontheavailabilityofalternativeregulationsand `  ignoredampleevidenceshowingthatthosealternativeswere  \  ineffective.Itwasagainstthisbackgroundthatthecourt   commentedthatlessburdensomealternativesmustbeevaluatedto d  seewhethertheyareaseffectiveasthechallengedscheme. `   ` Here,thesituationisverydifferent.Appellantsdonot   challengetheCity'senactmentofagenerallicensingscheme h regulatingentertainmentestablishments.k #  12      ׀Rather,appellants d complainabouttheCity'sspecificrefusaltograntA&Oamore  comprehensiveentertainmentlicense.Aspartofthatchallenge, l appellantspointtotheCity'snoiseordinance,positingthatits h enforcementwouldbealessburdensomealternativetoalicense  whichcoversonlycertainformsofentertainment.Thereisno p  evidence,orevenasuggestion,thattheCityactuallyconsidered  utilizingthenoiseordinanceinsteadofthelicensingschemewhen \ itcametoA&O.l #  13      ׀Thisisentirelypredictable.Thecontroversy X overA&O'sapplicationaroseataCityCouncilmeetingwhenthe   Cityconsideredtherenewalofannualentertainmentlicensesfor `  thecomingyear.Itwasnotinthecontextofdecidingwhat  \  regulatoryregimewouldbestbalancenoisepollutionreduction   againstallowingfullartisticexpression.ToexemptA&Ofromthe d  normallicensingscheme,infavorofutilizingthenoiseordinance, `  wouldhavebeenastrangeresult,tosaytheleast.    ` Furthermore,existinglawdoesnotgenerallysupportthe h propositionthatalternativesmustbeconsideredwhendeciding d whetheraregulationisnarrowlytailored.InKnightsofColumbus,  CouncilNo.94v.TownofLexington,272F.3d25(1stCir.2001) l (hereinafterKnightsofColumbus),alocalgroupbroughta h challengetoaregulationthattotallybannedtheerectionof  unattendedstructuresonthehistorictowngreen.Id.The p  plaintiffsappellantssuggestedthatthetowncouldhaveachieved !l" itspurposewithlessrestrictivealternatives.Id.at32. "$ However,thecourtconcludedthatthetowndidnothaveto  implementorexperimentwithalternativesbeforeemployingatotal \ ban.Id.at33.Incontrasttothelimitedrestrictionsinthis X case,KnightsofColumbuspresentsafairlyextremeregulation.   Nevertheless,thetown'sfailuretoconsideralternativesdidnot `  leadthecourttofindtheregulationunconstitutional.  \   ` Infact,theappropriateinquiryisnotwhether   alternativesexist,whichtheregulatingbodymustshoware d  ineffective.Rather,theinquiryiswhether"theState's `  articulatedrationaleactuallysupportsrestrictionsplacedon   particularconduct."NewEnglandCouncilofCarpentersv.Kinton, h 284F.3d9,27(1stCir.2002);accordGunOwners'ActionLeague, d Inc.v.Swift,284F.3d198,212(1stCir.2002)(upholdingaban  onusinghumanshapedtargetsatcertaingunclubsunder l intermediatescrutinywithoutconsideringlessrestrictive h alternatives);KnightsofColumbus,272F.3dat33.Certainly,  thatinquirycanincludeanexaminationofthealternatives p  consideredbyregulatingbody,see,e.g.,GlobeNewspaper,100F.3d !l" at18889,butnoteverycaserequiressuchaninquiry.Thisis "$ onesuchcase. t$&  ` TherecordclearlyshowsthattheCitylimitedA&O's  &p!( licenseinresponsetoneighborhoodcomplaintsaboutexcessive '#*  noise.Infact,despitethesecomplaints,theCitygaveA&Othe x)$, samelicenseithadintheprioryear.m #  14      ׀TheCityjustrefusedthe   requestforanexpandedlicense.Therecordsupportsonlyone \ inference:thattheCitybalancedtheinterestsofA&Oagainst X thoseofitsneighbors.Thiswasentirelyappropriate.SeeNat'l   Amusements,Inc.v.TownofDedham,43F.3d731,744(1stCir. `  1995)("[Theregulation]promotesthesubstantialgovernment  \  interestofpreservingtranquilityaninterestthat,as[the   town's]pastexperiencedemonstrates,wouldnotbeachievedas d  effectivelyabsenttheregulation."). `   ` Furthermore,evenifIweretoadoptthemajority's   conclusionthattheCitymustshowthatavailablealternativeswere h ineffective,IwouldfindthattheCityhasmetitsburden.The d majorityconcludesthat"theCitygavenoexplanationastowhyit  couldnothavereliedonthislessburdensomealternative l [enforcingthenoiseordinance]tothenoamplification h restriction."Actually,therecordclearlyshowsthatthenoise  ordinancewasineffective.A&Ohadviolatedthenoiseordinance p  onlyonce,buttheneighborscomplainedaboutincessantnoise.One !l" neighbortoldtheCity,"So,Idon'teventhinkit'sanissueof "$ violationofanyNoiseOrdinance,it'sjustthefactthatwedidn't t$& havethisnoisebeforeandnowwedoandwehavetodealwithit  &p!( andwedon'tlikeit."Thenoiseordinanceclearlyfailedto  addressthecommunity'sconcernsand,assuch,cannotbeconsidered \ aneffectivealternative.n #  15       X  ` Whilebelievingtherecordclearlyshowsthatthenoise   ordinanceisineffective,Ireiteratemyearlierpoint:theCity `  onlyneedstoshowthattheissuedlicenseswerenarrowlytailored  \  totheproblemandnotthatallavailablealternativesare   ineffective.Regardlessofthestandardemployed,theCityclearly d  meetsitsburden,andthejudgmentofthedistrictcourtshouldbe `  affirmed.Therefore,Irespectfullydissent.