By striking down parts of Augusta’s parade and mass-gathering ordinances, U.S. District Court John A. Woodcock last week vigorously protected the First Amendment against the over-reach of government. The ruling was impressive in its treatment of the issue and welcome in its result.

The city of Augusta, like other state capitals, is host to many types of public demonstrations and had developed rules to regulate them. Among those requirements were 30 days’ notice for a permit and substantial fees to the city – for traffic control and cleanup – with a waiver if good cause were shown.

A suit brought by Timothy Sullivan, who last year wanted to hold a March for Truth anti-war parade, and Larry Dansinger, who had applied for a permit to hold a peace march and rally, claimed the ordinances were unconstitutional because they discriminated based on the content of the protest, gave the city too much authority when issuing permits and did not have a suitable means to account for the hardship the fees might cause.

Judge Woodcock largely agreed, beginning with an appropriately strong assertion, “To march is to speak,” and pointing out in a 50-page decision numerous inconsistencies in Augusta’s regulations. For instance, the city sets its mass gathering ordinance “in order to protect the public health and safety,” but waives the permit rules for some athletic events. “Are athletic fans any less rowdy or vociferous, less prone to need medical care, water sewer facilities, or generally neater than, say, the people in the March for Truth Coalition?” Judge Woodcock asks. “If so, the city has produced no such evidence. Instead, the conclusion is inescapable that the city has made this exception based on content.”

Certainly, the city of Augusta may have made the decision to exempt athletic events because the events are generally a positive feature in a city. Judge Woodcock’s point is that the city went too far when it decided to favor sports events over, for instance, political ones.

It did not go far enough, however, when setting rules for how much to charge for traffic control, which can cost an applicant $1,500 or $2,000. The city’s rules for setting costs, according to Judge Woodcock’s decision, depend on an unacceptable degree of good faith and seem to be more interpretive than codified, in addition to producing a profit for the city.

Similarly, the rule requiring a meeting with the chief of police 30 days before an event and another rule for obtaining a waiver from the 30-day rule, while appearing to lack criteria to justify their existence, can have the effect of chilling free speech. Finally, the city also errs when its fee keeps the indigent from conveying their message, even if there were other, lesser, ways for them to speak out.

The message from the court is clear and applicable to all communities: Government should be strictly limited in choosing which type of speech to encourage or restrict, and any barriers they must set should be as low and evenly applied as possible.