This appeal concerns the constitutional validity of regulations promulgated by the National Park Service to restrict demonstrations and other activities on the sidewalk directly in front of the White House. The district court struck down most of the regulations, and modified the others, in an unpublished opinion of 26 April 1984. On appeal the plaintiff-appellees and intervenors contend that the district court's findings are not "clearly erroneous," and that this court should defer to those findings in what is essentially a factual dispute. The government, as defendant-appellant, urges reinstatement of the original regulations. It defends the regulations as reasonable time, place and manner restrictions which further substantial governmental interests, most notably the security of the President and the aesthetics of the White House view. We agree with the latter position and uphold the regulations as originally written.

The restrictions embodied in the regulations are of three types. The first set governs the size, construction, and placement of signs on the White House sidewalk. The primary purpose of the sign restrictions is to prevent signs from being used as weapons, as concealment for explosives, or as a means of breaching the White House fence. In light of recent Supreme Court cases which clarify the role of judicial review in the first amendment context, we conclude that the sign restrictions are reasonable as originally drafted. A second type of regulation restricts, but does not prohibit, demonstrations within the "center zone" of the sidewalk. We conclude that this restriction, too, is constitutional as a reasonable means of regulating the place of demonstrations. The government's interest in preserving a relatively unobstructed view of the White House for tourists and passersby constitutes a legitimate aesthetic goal which is not outweighed by the insubstantial infringement on the demonstrators' ability to engage in expressive activities. Moreover, while unrestricted access to the center zone might provide demonstrators with optimal media exposure, appellees have no first amendment right to such exposure. The third type of regulation prohibits the placing of parcels, except momentarily, on the sidewalk. Such activity has no expressive content; at most, it may be said to facilitate expression. It is unclear whether the facilitative activity proscribed here implicates the first amendment. Even if it does, however, the parcels restriction is constitutional as a reasonable restriction on the manner in which speech may be exercised: it is narrowly tailored to prevent the concealment of explosive devices within parcels left unattended on the sidewalk.

In late 1982 representatives of the National Park Service, the Park Police, the Secret Service and the Department of Justice met to consider ways of protecting the White House and its occupants from terrorist attack.1 The need for increased presidential security had been tragically illustrated by the events of 8 December 1982, when Norman Mayer, a regular protestor on the White House sidewalk, was killed by police officers after threatening to blow up the Washington Monument.2 While the agencies reviewed existing regulations and drafted new ones,3 terrorist activity continued at an alarming rate both at home4 and abroad.5

The National Park Service published interim regulations on 22 April 1983;6 they were to become effective immediately.7 The regulations required that signs and placards displayed on the White House sidewalk8 be hand-held by individuals.9 In addition, they prohibited the deposit of parcels on the sidewalk for longer than one hour and provided that parcels placed on the sidewalk were subject to inspection by police officers.10

On 27 April officers of the United States Park Police arrested three long-time protestors on the White House sidewalk11 for failing to comply with the interim regulations. Those arrested, along with other regular White House demonstrators, filed suit in U.S. District Court two days later seeking declaratory and injunctive relief on the ground that the regulations infringed their first amendment rights of free expression.12 Following an evidentiary hearing on plaintiffs' motion for a temporary restraining order, Judge William B. Bryant concluded that the Park Service had failed to show "good cause" for dispensing with the notice and comment requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act13 when it issued the interim regulations.14 He enjoined enforcement of the regulations pending publication of a final rule.15

The Park Service complied immediately. It republished the regulations as a proposed rulemaking on 17 May 1983, with a public comment period extending to 31 May.16 The Service received fifteen comments, seven of which supported the regulations as proposed and eight of which opposed some portion of them.17 The Service studied the comments, modified its interim regulations and published a "final rule" on 17 June 1983.18 The plaintiffs amended their complaint seven days later to take account of the new provisions.19

The regulations impose three types of restrictions on activities conducted on the White House sidewalk. The first set of provisions governs the construction, size and placement of signs carried by demonstrators and other individuals. Signs must be constructed of cardboard, posterboard or cloth, while sign supports must be made of wood.20 Signs can be no larger than three feet in height,21 twenty feet in length, and one-quarter inch in thickness, while sign supports must have cross-sectional dimensions of no greater than three-quarters of an inch.22 All signs on the sidewalk must be "attended," a requirement which is met only if the sign is in physical contact with a person.23 Stationary signs may be no closer than three feet to the White House fence,24 and no sign may be leaned against or attached to the fence or other structure on the sidewalk.25

A second type of restriction concerns the "center zone," an area defined as the central twenty yards of the sidewalk.26 Within the center zone, signs may not be held, placed or set down, but "individuals may demonstrate while carrying signs ... if they continue to move along the sidewalk."27

The third type of restriction prohibits the deposit of parcels and other property on the ground. An exception is made for items which are "momentarily placed or set down in the immediate presence of the owner."28

The Park Service prefaced its final regulations with a concise explanation of the governmental interests they were designed to serve. Those interests were threefold: "to minimize potential threats to the [White House] and its occupants and visitors ... to provide opportunities to the visitor to view the White House, and to maintain the free flow of pedestrian and emergency traffic."29 The Service described in detail the manner in which its regulations were designed to accomplish those ends; in doing so, it relied on its own experience as well as that of other federal agencies charged with the protection of the White House and its grounds. The Park Service discussed at length the objections which various commentators had registered to the interim regulations, and it noted modifications which it had made in the regulations to take account of criticisms it found valid.

Following an evidentiary hearing the district court entered a preliminary injunction against enforcement of many of the restrictions on 19 July 1983.30 In the court's view, "the governmental interests served by the regulations could be attained through alternative means which are less intrusive on first amendment freedoms."31 The court proceeded to "finetune" the regulations: not only did it uphold some restrictions and reject others, it modified the content of individual provisions by substituting its factual judgment for that of the agency. The court approved the twenty foot limit on the length of signs, but created a special exception for those held parallel to the fence.32 It endorsed the concept of restricting sign and parcel placement, but held that the "physical contact" requirement for signs and the prohibition on parcel placement were unnecessarily restrictive.33 In their place, the court fashioned a rule which allowed signs and parcels to be placed on the sidewalk if they were "attended at all times," with "attendance" defined to mean "in the immediate presence of the owner."34 The court approved without modification only three provisions: the restriction on sign materials,35 the center zone restriction,36 and the absolute prohibition on the placement of structures on the sidewalk.37

The government appealed the district court's order, and its appeal was heard on an expedited basis. In a brief per curiam opinion this court modified the preliminary injunction to take greater account of the government's interest in presidential security.38 It noted that review of a preliminary injunction ordinarily proceeds under the abuse-of-discretion standard,39 but that an appellate court has greater authority to modify such an injunction where the security of the President is at stake.40 The modifications which this court undertook to make, however, were of the same genre as those which the district court itself had made earlier.41 An "attended" sign was now defined as one "within three feet of the person responsible for controlling it";42 no explanation was given for the arbitrary three-foot figure and no attempt was made to define "control." Signs could be leaned against, or placed within three feet of, the White House fence, but the district court was instructed to set a limit "as to the size, number, and spacing" of such signs.43 Hollow metal tubes were to be permitted as sign supports, but only if their ends were "permanently secured."44 The parcels restriction was allowed to stand, but plaintiffs were permitted to request an exemption for "a reasonable inventory of pamphlets, leaflets and similar writings."45

This court's modifications only applied to the preliminary injunction; they did not preclude de novo consideration of the merits.46 On 23 August the district court modified its order to take account of this court's decision and set the case for trial on an expedited basis.47

At trial the court heard testimony from more than twenty witnesses. Among those who testified for the government were several Secret Service and Park Police officials with special expertise in the field of White House security.48 Those officials testified at length as to the security rationales underlying each regulation; they emphasized the need to anticipate ingenious and unprecedented forms of terrorism.

On 26 April 1984, the district court issued the decision and order appealed from here.49 It invalidated virtually all of the restrictions on the ground that they did not advance the government's interest in security. In order to prevail, the court wrote, "the government must show at least a probable danger to the security of the President and the White House created by the plaintiffs' activities. That is to say, it must establish a nexus between the activity it would proscribe and a threat to presidential security."50 The court found that the demonstrators' activities posed no direct threat to the safety of the President.51 Despite the fact that "security measures should be predicated on a 'better safe than sorry' premise,"52 the court described the challenged regulations as "totally ineffective" and "demonstrably too restrictive."53 Its analysis of individual provisions was equally conclusory. The ban on wooden signs was "unjustified," and any testimony to the contrary was "incredible."54 The requirement that protestors maintain physical contact with their signs, and the prohibition on stationary signs within three feet of the fence, was "oppressive."55 The government's fear that terrorists might conceal explosives or rockets inside hollow metal supports was "grossly exaggerated."56 The center zone restriction was "not justified on any score,"57 while a flat ban on the deposit of parcels was "clearly overbroad and unreasonable."58

Having concluded that the regulations as originally written were in violation of the first amendment,59 the district court proceeded to reject some provisions and to rewrite others. The government had argued that "[United States v. ] O'Brien [391 U.S. 367, 88 S. Ct. 1673, 20 L. Ed. 2d 672 (1968) ] does not contemplate ad hoc regulatory supervision by the courts over the details of an administrative scheme, and that in fact, the Supreme Court has warned that '[t]he logic of ... elaborate less-restrictive-alternative arguments could raise insuperable barriers to the exercise of virtually all [regulatory] powers' (United States v. Martinez-Fuerte, 428 U.S. 543, 557, n. 12, 96 S. Ct. 3074, 3082, n. 12, 49 L. Ed. 2d 1116 (1976)."60 The district court rejected the applicability of Martinez-Fuerte. Because that case dealt with the fourth amendment's protection against unreasonable searches and seizures, the court concluded that it did not state the standard of judicial scrutiny to be applied in first amendment cases. As a matter of "constitutional necessity," courts should engage in a much more stringent review of governmental action when first amendment interests are at stake.61

The court permanently enjoined the enforcement of every provision as written except for the one-quarter inch limitation on the thickness of signs.62 The requirement that signs be attended and the restriction on the deposit of parcels also survived, but in significantly different form from that which the agency had adopted. Signs were considered "attended" when they were within five feet of the person controlling them.63 Parcels were permitted on the sidewalk when they were within the "immediate presence" of the owner; the same five-foot rule was to be applied in determining "immediate presence."64

The government appealed to this court. While the case was pending and before oral argument the Supreme Court decided two cases of major import for the reasonable restriction of free speech within public fora.65 It is primarily our responsibility on this appeal to determine what significance these and other recent Supreme Court decisions have for the regulation of demonstrations on the White House sidewalk.

Certain types of places are so vital to a healthy and robust public discourse that they are accorded special status under the first amendment. The government cannot constitutionally prohibit all expressive activities in these public fora;66 access to them is a small but invaluable part of every American's heritage.

The public sidewalk here is one such forum.67 Sidewalks, like streets and parks, are places whose title has "immemorially been held in trust for the use of the public."68 As such, they occupy a privileged position in the hierarchy of first amendment jurisprudence.69

The government is not precluded, however, from regulating expressive activities conducted on the White House sidewalk.70 It may adopt reasonable "time, place and manner" restrictions on the exercise of free speech, so long as the restrictions are content-neutral, are narrowly tailored to serve a significant governmental interest, and leave open ample alternative channels of communication.71

The regulations challenged here are clearly not based "upon either the content or subject matter of speech."72 There is nothing in the text or the history of the regulations to suggest that one group's viewpoint is to be preferred at the expense of others. They meet the test of being content-neutral. Appellees contend that the Park Service has applied the regulations in a discriminatory fashion, favoring demonstrators who espouse Administration views and disfavoring those with contrary positions, but we find the evidence for such discrimination speculative and unpersuasive. The government has offered cogent explanations for the handful of instances in which the regulations were applied unevenly; we conclude that those aberrations were the product of happenstance and unavoidable circumstances rather than of improper motives. Needless to say, no court will tolerate any attempt to discriminate among protestors on the basis of viewpoint or subject matter.

Nor do we believe that the purpose underlying the regulations was to ban speech entirely. Appellees direct our attention to a memorandum, dated 13 January 1983, from then-Secretary of the Interior James Watt to an aide, Moody Tidwell. Watt requested "a briefing on the regulations that allow demonstrations and protestors in Lafayette Park and in front of the White House on Pennsylvania Avenue. My intention is to prohibit such activities and require that they take place on the Ellipse."73 In March 1983 Watt received a briefing from the principal drafter of the new regulations and told him to "keep up the good work."74

On the circumstances existing during the relevant time here, a strong argument could have been made that a regulation banning all demonstrations on the White House sidewalk and in Lafayette Park would have been unconstitutional.75 But the institution of a total ban is not the approach the Park Service took; indeed, it is one the Service explicitly rejected. In its preamble to the final regulations, the Service stated that "legal precedent in the District of Columbia Circuit would prevent prohibiting demonstrations altogether on the White House sidewalk."76 More relevant now may be recent precedent in the Supreme Court,77 but, whether currently accurate as a statement of law or not, this is but one of several indications that the Park Service dealt with constitutional values with scrupulous care.

The regulations also clearly satisfy the constitutional requirement that they leave open ample alternative channels of communication. Demonstrators on the sidewalk are free to engage in a rich variety of expressive activities: they may picket, march, hand out leaflets, carry signs, sing, shout, chant, perform dramatic presentations, solicit signatures for petitions, and appeal to passersby. The content of the message they espouse is theirs and theirs alone; they may express views and employ verbal formulae that would be punished as seditious libel, blasphemy or obscenity in less free societies. Although they may not engage in stationary protest within the center zone of the sidewalk, they are in no way precluded from engaging in other forms of expression there, and they may stand still on the remaining 93% of the sidewalk. Should they find the government's regulations too restrictive they may always carry their demonstration immediately across Pennsylvania Avenue to Lafayette Park. In short, the regulations leave unaffected a multitude of possibilities for meaningful protest on the sidewalk and within a few yards in adjoining areas.

The regulations also clearly serve a "substantial governmental interest." No one can deny the substantiality or the significance of America's interest in presidential security.78 At stake is not merely the safety of one man, but also the ability of the executive branch to function in an orderly fashion and the capacity of the United States to respond to threats and crises affecting the entire free world. Nor is the interest in pedestrian safety and traffic insubstantial; the value of sidewalks as public fora would be considerably vitiated were the state unable to provide for the orderly passage of those persons who use them.79 Finally, the government has a substantial interest in the preservation and enhancement of the human environment; aesthetics are a proper focus of governmental regulation.80

As in most "time, place and manner" cases, the decisive inquiry here is as to the requisite narrowness of the means employed by the government to advance its substantial interests.81 Appellees contend that this is primarily a factual matter, and that an appellate court should refrain from overturning the decision of the trial court unless that decision is "clearly erroneous."82 Furthermore, appellees suggest that a trial court has the power to substitute its factual judgment for that of an agency where the agency has chosen not to adopt the "least restrictive" regulatory alternative.

We reject both contentions. The issue for decision on this appeal is not factual, it is legal: did the Park Service draft regulations that were "narrowly tailored to serve a significant governmental interest"? The agency in this case was the institution charged with the principal resolution of factual issues; the court's role was limited to determining whether the regulations which the agency adopted were within the boundaries of constitutionality prescribed by the first amendment. If they were, it is not the province of the court to "finetune" the regulations so as to institute the single regulatory option the court personally considers most desirable. Courts possess no particular expertise in the drafting of regulatory measures;83 their role is to uphold regulations which are constitutional and to strike down those which are not.

Our analysis is informed by recent Supreme Court interpretations of the "narrowly tailored" requirement. In Clark v. Community for Creative Non-Violence84 the Court upheld a Park Service regulation which prohibited camping in certain parks in Washington, D.C. The Service had used the regulation to deny plaintiffs' request for permission to sleep in Lafayette Park and the Mall as part of a vigil symbolizing the plight of the homeless in America. This court, sitting en banc, held by a six to five vote that application of the regulations so as to prevent sleeping in the parks would infringe the demonstrators' first amendment rights.85

The Supreme Court reversed.86 Assuming but not deciding that sleep may be an expressive activity,87 it noted the substantiality of the government's interest in "maintaining the parks in the heart of our capital in an attractive and intact condition."88 It concluded that the Park Service regulation was a reasonable restriction on the time, place and manner of speech.89 In doing so it criticized the majority of this court for second-guessing the Park Service's judgment:

We are unmoved by the Court of Appeals' view that the challenged regulation is unnecessary, and hence invalid, because there are less speech-restrictive alternatives that could have satisfied the government interest in preserving park lands. There is no gain-saying that preventing overnight sleeping will avoid a measure of actual or threatened damage to Lafayette Park and the Mall. The Court of Appeals' suggestion that the Park Service minimize the possible injury by reducing the size, duration, or frequency of demonstrations would still curtail the total allowable expression in which demonstrators could engage, whether by sleeping or otherwise, and these suggestions represent no more than a disagreement with the Park Service over how much protection the core parks require or how an acceptable level of preservation is to be attained. We do not believe, however, that either United States v. O'Brien or the time, place, and manner decisions assign to the judiciary the authority to replace the Park Service as the manager of the Nation's parks or endow the judiciary with the competence to judge how much protection of park lands is wise and how that level of conservation is to be attained.90

In Regan v. Time, Inc.91 the Court considered a federal statute which made criminal the publication of photographs of United States currency in color or within a specified size range. The Court upheld the color and size requirements as reasonable restrictions on speech.92 In doing so Justice White and a plurality of the Court again rejected the notion that courts may arbitrarily substitute their judgment for that of legislative or administrative institutions:

Time contends that although the color restriction serves the Government's interest in preventing counterfeiting, it is nonetheless invalid because it is not narrow enough. Time asserts that the color restriction applies to an illustration of currency regardless of its capacity to deceive and is thus broader than is necessary to achieve the Government's interest in preventing counterfeiting. However, Time places too narrow a construction on the Government's interest and too heavy a burden on those enacting time, place, and manner regulations.... It is ... sufficiently evident that the color limitation serves the Government's interest in a substantial way. That the limitations may apply to some photographs that are themselves of no use to counterfeiters does not invalidate the legislation. The less-restrictive-alternative analysis invoked by Time has never been a part of the inquiry into the validity of a time, place, and manner regulation. It is enough that the color restriction substantially serves the Government's legitimate ends.93

Justice Stevens expressed a similar view in his concurrence:

It may well be, as Time argues, that "Congress can do a much better job in preventing counterfeiting than the present Sec. 474 and Sec. 504," Br. for Appellee 46. The question for us, of course, is not whether Congress could have done a better job, but whether the job it did violates Time's right to free expression. It does not....94

Clark v. CCNV and Regan v. Time clarify the respective institutional roles of administrators and judges. The expertise of administrators lies in selecting policy goals and in devising techniques with which to pursue them. In the course of performing their twin roles administrators consider evidence which is predominantly factual in nature. Such inquiries, however, seldom lead to a single, determinate result. More often they suggest a number of feasible alternatives, each of which is capable of accomplishing the agency's goals within acceptable parameters of accuracy and effectiveness. Where a regulation restricts the time, place or manner of speech, however, feasibility is not enough: the regulation must also satisfy the first amendment requirement that it be "narrowly tailored." The Supreme Court's test defines a subset of regulatory options which are both feasible and constitutional; it is within this zone of constitutionality that agencies are permitted to exercise discretion in selecting regulatory initiatives.95

The expertise of courts lies in determining whether an agency's decision is within the zone of constitutionality, not in choosing between options within that zone.96 A court may not require that the agency adopt the "least restrictive alternative," thereby substituting its judgment for that of the regulators.97 In short, if the regulation lies within the zone prescribed by the first amendment it is constitutional and must be affirmed as such by a court before which it is challenged.

We turn, then, to an examination of the individual regulatory measures adopted by the Park Service, bearing in mind that the expertise of several federal agencies, including that of the Secret Service, contributed to their content.

The first set of regulatory provisions governs the construction, size and use of signs carried on the White House sidewalk. They prohibit persons from

a. leaning or attaching signs against the fence;

b. demonstrating with signs that are not "attended," with attendance defined as the maintenance of physical contact;

c. holding stationary signs closer than three feet to the fence;

d. holding signs not made of cardboard, posterboard or cloth;

e. holding signs larger than three feet in height, twenty feet in length, and one-quarter inch in thickness;

f. using sign supports not made of wood with cross-sections larger than three-quarters of an inch by three-quarters of an inch.98

The district court permanently enjoined the enforcement of all but two of the sign provisions. It upheld the one-quarter inch limitation on the thickness of signs;99 it also approved the requirement that signs be "attended," but redefined "attendance" to mean "within 5 feet of the persons responsible for controlling them."100 Appellees defend the trial court's modification; appellants urge us to reinstate the original language.

While the Park Service advanced other governmental interests as a justification for the sign provisions,101 it is clear that the principal interest they are designed to serve is that of presidential security. This court has described the safety of the President as a "paramount interest";102 we have held that the protection of the White House and its occupants justifies "a greater limitation than would be applicable generally to use of public streets and parks."103

Just as the White House area is a "unique situs" for first amendment activity,104 it is also a unique situs for considerations of presidential and national security. Despite the significant amount of time modern Presidents spend travelling, they and their families are in residence at the White House far more than they are away. Not only the President, but the Vice-President, the White House Chief of Staff and other high Administration officials have their offices in the Mansion. The White House is the nerve center for America's national security network, with facilities for coordinating the activities of American diplomats, intelligence agents and military personnel around the globe. Indeed, it is not surprising that the "hot line" and the Situation Room, both located within the Mansion, have become two of the most evocative symbols of national security in an increasingly dangerous age of nuclear tension.

For a structure of such obvious significance to presidential and national security, the White House is singularly exposed to potential terrorist attack. It is located in the middle of a densely populated metropolitan area. A major thoroughfare, Pennsylvania Avenue, runs alongside the White House sidewalk, while busy E Street bounds the Mansion's lawn to the south. Although airplanes are legally prohibited from flying over the White House, the presence of the National Airport flyway a mile to the west presents a latent security danger. So, too, does the construction of tall office buildings within a few blocks of the Mansion.105

In short, the need for effective security in the vicinity of the White House is great, but the geographical position of the Mansion renders it inherently insecure. Several federal agencies have brought considerable experience and expertise to bear on the problem of White House security; the regulations challenged here are but one fruit of their endeavors.

Considered as part of a larger effort to safeguard the Mansion and its occupants, the sign provisions clearly represent an appropriate means of promoting the substantial governmental interest at stake. They are narrowly tailored to avert specific forms of terrorism.106 Thus, the size limitations are designed to ensure that activities occurring on the sidewalk are not obstructed from police view. The interest at stake is one which cannot be promoted solely through the assignment of additional police officers to the sidewalk: no matter how large the police presence, large signs make observation and communication among officers more difficult. The requirement that signs be constructed of non-rigid materials is designed to prevent them from being used to scale the White House fence, or turned upon police officers or other demonstrators as weapons. The restriction on the composition of sign supports similarly prevents their use as weapons, either in hand-to-hand struggle or as a means of launching projectiles. The prohibition on the leaning of signs against the White House fence ensures that terrorists will not be able to hide explosives or other deadly objects in the triangular area between the sign and the fence ledge. Finally, the requirement that a demonstrator maintain physical contact with his or her sign is another means of ensuring that signs are not turned into weapons or used to conceal dangerous items.107

The measures adopted by the Park Service are clearly not the only means by which that agency could have sought to deter illegal activity on the sidewalk. There may even be options the Service rejected which would have promoted its interests in a more effective fashion. We are not at liberty, however, to replace the agency's judgment with our own. It is sufficient that the means selected be "narrowly tailored": that they lie within the range of feasible options the agency was constitutionally permitted to consider. The sign provisions clearly satisfy this element of the time, place and manner test.

The challenged regulations provide in part that

No signs or placards shall be held, placed or set down on the center portion of the White House sidewalk, comprising ten yards on either side of the center point on the sidewalk; Provided, however, that individuals may demonstrate while carrying signs on that portion of the sidewalk if they continue to move along the sidewalk.108

The asserted governmental interest in imposing additional restrictions for demonstrations within the "center zone" is that of preserving unimpaired the public's view of the Presidential Mansion from Pennsylvania Avenue and Lafayette Park.109 No considerations of security or safety are at stake; the governmental interest derives wholly from aesthetic concerns.

It is well established that the government's power to regulate private affairs encompasses the power to promote aesthetic goals.110 While judgments based on aesthetic considerations are inherently more subjective than other types of decisions, they nonetheless reflect values of great significance in everyday life. A decision to ban all billboards from a residential neighborhood may be as important to the people who live there as the assignment of additional police officers to the area; the preservation of an historic building111 may do more to enhance the quality of life in a city than the construction of a new freeway.

Recent decisions of the Supreme Court establish that aesthetic considerations may justify otherwise reasonable time, place and manner restrictions on speech.112 Because the interests at stake are inherently subjective, however, they must be "carefully scrutinized to determine if they are only a public rationalization of an impermissible purpose."113

We are convinced that the restriction challenged here does not mask constitutionally improper motives. Three factors are relevant to our analysis.

First, the government has regulated for the benefit of the public rather than for the promotion of its own aesthetic preferences. It is the view of the White House, not from it, which is being preserved. Whatever would be our ruling in the latter case, the purpose of the regulation here is clearly proper.

In order to establish the constitutionality of an aesthetic regulation of speech, the government must show that the regulation was enacted for purposes other than the effectuation of its drafters' personal tastes. Some resort must be had to societal preferences. To be sure, the preference ultimately embraced need not be that held by a majority of the populace. The government is entitled to rely on the expert judgment of artists, architects, urban planners, design consultants, historians, and other professionals; it is not limited to the prevailing style, but may embrace the innovative and the avantgarde. The aesthetic judgment it makes need not sit well with all citizens, for the debate sparked by an unconventional choice often leads to a richer and more complex appreciation of what is aesthetically pleasing.114 In short, the government need not endorse that which is popular or prevalent, but it must always act on society's behalf rather than its own.115

Arbitrariness or capriciousness in the selection of aesthetic goals may indicate the presence of an impermissible motive either to enact the preferences of individual government officials or to burden unreasonably the exercise of free speech.116 A requirement that all signs carried on the White House sidewalk be of a certain color, for example, would be suspect because it appears to serve no legitimate social interest in aesthetics. For similar reasons the center zone restriction would be suspect were it shown that the public regards the presence of stationary signs directly in front of the White House as aesthetically pleasing. This in essence is what appellees argue; they contend that for many tourists the "White House experience" includes the presence of stationary demonstrations in the center portion of the sidewalk. This may be true, although why signs in the center zone as well as for more than a hundred yards on either side are essential for some visitors' "White House experience" has not been explained. As the public comments reveal, however, many other tourists believe that the proliferation of stationary signs within the center zone substantially detracts from their ability to view the White House and its grounds. The Park Service was therefore required to choose between two conflicting views of what is aesthetically pleasing.117 Its decision to preserve twenty yards of the White House sidewalk was not unreasonable; the Service could conclude that most Americans share the latter aesthetic preference, and that stationary protests block more of the White House view than do mobile ones.118 Far from being arbitrary, the Service's decision represented an exercise of informed discretion based upon what a sizable portion of society regarded as aesthetically significant.

The second factor we must consider in assessing the center zone restriction is the extent to which it burdens speech. The more restrictive an aesthetic regulation, the closer a court must look to determine if it is based on constitutionally improper motives.

The center zone restriction burdens speech only in an indirect and insubstantial way. Protestors are free to engage in a wide variety of expressive activities within the center zone; they are only precluded while there from engaging in stationary protest. The center zone occupies no more than seven percent of the total length of the sidewalk; protestors may remain stationary along any portion of the remainder.

Appellees contend, however, that the regulation makes it more difficult for them to attract media attention to their cause. They assert that the center zone of the sidewalk is a particularly evocative site for symbolic protest, and that stationary demonstrations there are given preferential coverage by the news media. To deny them the opportunity to engage in such protest, they argue, is to deny them effective access to the media.

We find appellees' contentions unpersuasive for two reasons. First, the government introduced into evidence several photographs which show that the Mansion can clearly be seen from non-central locations on the sidewalk. Second, and more importantly, our caselaw does not recognize a constitutional right to attract media attention to one's cause. As this court stated in Vietnam Veterans Against the War v. Morton,119 "What the litigant's press agent seeks and what the public interest requires differ widely. Although every man is entitled to make his remonstrance, no man is entitled to make such a remonstrance that it will be carried on all three television networks."120

The final consideration relevant to our analysis is that the center zone restriction is not an isolated attempt to regulate the aesthetics of the White House view. If it were we might engage in a more searching inquiry to ensure that the agency has regulated for genuinely aesthetic reasons and not for the purpose of curtailing protected expression. The regulation here, however, is but one element of a continuing effort by the Park Service to preserve and enhance the view of the White House for tourists and passersby. The White House and its grounds are maintained year-round in a scrupulously manicured condition; indeed, only this summer the north facade of the Mansion underwent extensive restoration. The White House lawn is designed and maintained such that tourists on the sidewalk are afforded an excellent view of the Mansion. The fence which separates the sidewalk from the White House grounds is designed to facilitate rather than obstruct that view. It is obvious that the Park Service has promoted, in a number of ways, the ability of Americans to enjoy the beauty of the White House and its grounds. The center zone restriction is only one example of the Service's commitment to aesthetic values and their effective implementation.121

We find no evidence that the center zone restriction was enacted for any purpose other than the preservation and enhancement of the White House view for tourists and passersby. Because the Park Service based its aesthetic judgment on societal preferences rather than the preferences of individual officials, because the regulation it adopted is not unduly restrictive of free expression, and because the regulation constitutes part of a comprehensive effort to preserve the aesthetics of the White House view, we conclude that the provision is constitutional.

The regulations provide thatNo parcel, container, package, bundle or other property shall be placed or stored on the White House sidewalk ... Provided, however, that such property, except structures, may be momentarily placed or set down in the immediate presence of the owner on those sidewalks.122

The district court found this prohibition "clearly overbroad and unreasonable."123 It rewrote the rule to provide that "parcels or other property be in the immediate presence of the owner, where 'immediate presence' shall be defined as within 5 feet of the owner."124 Appellees urge this court to affirm the modifications.125 They argue that the original provision makes it more difficult for protestors such as the elderly and handicapped, or mothers with small children, to take part in prolonged demonstrations. These protestors, they contend, must have available to them such items as medical supplies and infant necessities to be able to remain on the sidewalk for any extended period of time. The government, by contrast, seeks reinstatement of the original language.126

We are not entirely convinced that the first amendment protects the conduct proscribed by the parcels restriction.127 That amendment only protects activity which may be fairly characterized as speech. Courts have correctly recognized that some forms of conduct are sufficiently expressive to warrant constitutional protection,128 but by no means all conduct which is intended by the actor to express an idea is speech.129 Intent is but one half the calculus;130 a court must also consider whether "in the surrounding circumstances the likelihood was great that the message would be understood by those who viewed it."131 Those types of conduct which the Supreme Court has held are within the ambit of the first amendment--most notably, demonstrating,132 marching,133 picketing,134 wearing armbands,135 leafletting,136 and affixing a peace symbol to the American flag137--clearly satisfy both the subjective and objective requirements of the constitutional test.138

By contrast, the activity at issue here--placing parcels on the sidewalk--appears to satisfy neither. Appellees have made no credible claim that such activity is "inten[ded] to convey a particularized message";139 nor have they shown that onlookers would regard their conduct as communicative.140 Parcels are, of course, inherently less expressive than signs; while the requirement that demonstrators maintain physical contact with their signs directly implicates expressive activity, the parcels restriction does not.141

At most, the activity proscribed by the parcels restriction facilitates expression.142 The first amendment protects facilitative activity only insofar as its restriction imposes burdens on expression itself.143 Neither the Supreme Court nor the lower federal courts, however, have enunciated a test for determining how substantial a burden on expression is necessary before the first amendment is implicated.144 While it is obvious that not just any minimal effect will do, this court is left without guidance for determining whether the alleged burden in this case is sufficient to trigger constitutional protection.

It is unnecessary for us to resolve this potentially thorny issue, however, because the parcels restriction clearly survives scrutiny under the reasonable time, place and manner test. The provision is narrowly tailored to address a security problem of the greatest magnitude, that of parcels left unattended on the White House sidewalk. Because any such parcel could contain an explosive device, all unattended parcels must be regarded as potentially suspect.145

The fact that the regulation limits the "nature, extent [or] duration" of demonstrations conducted on the White House sidewalk does not necessarily render it unconstitutional;146 the burden it imposes on expression must be weighed against the government's substantial interest in presidential security and the safety of persons on the sidewalk. It is clear that the elderly, the handicapped and infirm, and those with young children to care for will still be able to engage in protest despite the regulation. Organizations (such as NOW) which stage vigils of extended duration will, in many instances, be able to accommodate the special needs of such participants through the use of "facilitators."147 Such persons can supply demonstrators with the items they require either by carrying the items on their person or by bringing them across Pennsylvania Avenue from Lafayette Park. Even if an organization does not use facilitators or if a demonstrator is engaged in a lone vigil, we are convinced that protest of a meaningful duration will remain possible for any persons who would have been able to demonstrate before adoption of the regulations.

The regulations challenged here reflect the same variety of reasoned decisionmaking approved of by the Supreme Court in Clark v. Community for Creative Non-Violence and Regan v. Time. It is not the prerogative of this or any other court to question regulatory provisions affecting the time, place and manner of speech which lie within the zone of constitutionality prescribed by the first amendment. While the temptation to engage in judicial rulemaking may be powerful, our Constitution is best preserved by adherence to the proper judicial role.

Reversed.

WALD, Circuit Judge, concurring in the judgment in part and dissenting in part:

These cases are never easy. The nation has a paramount interest in the safety of its President, and judges must respect the experience and knowledge of the law enforcement agencies charged with protecting the President, his family, and others who live and work in the White House. In reviewing decisions about their security we must proceed with care.

Nonetheless, our duty requires us ultimately to weigh for ourselves the merits of a first amendment challenge to agency regulations in this sensitive area. The appellees in this case, all of whom frequently demonstrate on the White House sidewalk, argue that the government has needlessly infringed their right "peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances" at this center of executive power, and the district court sustained that view. While I agree with the majority that most of the Park Service regulations are not unconstitutional as written, in my view the majority opinion does not adequately dignify the constitutional interests at stake in this claim, and does not examine those interests with sufficient particularity. The majority tautologically informs us that if a regulation "lies within the zone prescribed by the first amendment it is constitutional," Maj. Op. at 1532, but unfortunately tells us very little about where the boundaries of that "zone" are found.

Prior cases of the Supreme Court and this court concerning time, place, and manner restrictions do not permit such uncritical deference to agency decisionmaking. Because we are deciding the content of constitutional principles with significant effect on future cases, I believe our differences merit the discussion that follows.

I have problems with the majority's legal analysis in three respects. First, I believe it discounts the district court's primary obligation to do the constitutional balancing for itself, and as a result overrates the appropriate scope of our appellate review. Second, it does not heed closely enough the requirement that time, place, and manner restrictions be "narrowly tailored." Recent Supreme Court cases on which the majority relies expressly reaffirm this test. Yet I read in the majority opinion hints that the government--as a result of those cases--now has greater latitude than previously to burden protected expression. As I parse those cases, however, they refine but do not revamp settled principles in first amendment law that govern our decision here. Finally, I disagree with the majority's analysis of the limited responses available to federal judges when they decide regulations are unconstitutional in part.

* The majority explains its refusal to review the district court's findings under the usual Fed.R.Civ.P. 52 "clearly erroneous" standard by asserting that

The issue for decision on this appeal is not factual, it is legal: did the Park Service draft regulations that were "narrowly tailored to serve a significant government interest"? The agency in this case was the institution charged with the principal resolution of factual issues; the court's role was limited to determining whether the regulations which the agency adopted were within the boundaries of constitutionality prescribed by the first amendment.

Maj. Op., text at n. 83 (emphasis in original). The majority appears to reason that (1) the district court should have reviewed agency factfinding under a more deferential standard; (2) the district court's own "findings" are really conclusions of law, since it had no independent factfinding responsibility; and (3) therefore those "findings" are reviewable on appeal under the liberal standard for assessing legal error. I do not agree that this is an accurate statement of what a trial or appellate judge's responsibility is in such cases.

Judge Leventhal offered a balanced appraisal of judicial responsibility in first amendment cases.

[T]his case is not a normal review of an executive action or administrative proceeding. When the executive or the administrative process abridges constitutional rights, it is subject to closer scrutiny than otherwise, and ultimately it is the court rather than the agency that must balance the competing interests. The question in this case is not whether some support for the regulations may be adduced, by reference to evidence in the record and a claim of reasonable inferences or concerns, but is whether the regulations at issue here are "unnecessarily restrictive for the purpose they are designed to serve."

We now have ... a judicial determination based upon factual evidence adduced at a trial, indeed at a rather extensive and complete trial. To this determination we owe greater deference than to the untested administrative judgments with which we have been previously confronted. This decision being appealed was rendered by a district judge after consideration of both constitutional considerations, for which a judge has special concern, and the security considerations brought forward by the government officials. Moreover, the district judge had the benefit of the live testimony of the various witnesses whose assertions could be tested and probed on cross-examination. Thus, unless we discern clear error in the district court's findings of fact, or a mistake in its legal approach, we have no warrant for reversal.

A Quaker Action Group v. Morton, 516 F.2d 717, 723-24 (D.C.Cir.1975) (footnote omitted) (quoting A Quaker Action Group v. Morton, 460 F.2d 854, 860 (D.C.Cir.1971)); see also Women Strike for Peace v. Morton, 472 F.2d 1273, 1289 (D.C.Cir.1972) (opinion of Wright, J.).1

In this case, the district court conducted a trial de novo, during which it exhaustively reviewed evidence relevant to the constitutionality of the regulations, including evidence offered by the governmental agencies. It was required to give the government's witnesses the attention their expertise warranted. But that evidence still had to undergo the judge's independent appraisal and judgment, and his factual findings deserve our approval unless clearly erroneous.

As the majority rightly notes, time, place, and manner restrictions must be justified without regard to the content of the message expressed; must be narrowly tailored to serve a significant government interest; and must leave open ample alternative channels of communication. See, e.g., Clark v. Community for Creative Non-Violence, --- U.S. ----, 104 S. Ct. 3065, 3069, 82 L. Ed. 2d 221 (1984). The crux of this case involves the second element of the test.

United States v. O'Brien, 391 U.S. 367, 88 S. Ct. 1673, 20 L. Ed. 2d 672 (1968), required that the incidental restrictions a regulation imposes on protected expression be no broader than is essential to the furtherance of the governmental interest at stake. Id. at 382, 88 S.Ct. at 1681.2 That standard has been further broken down into two subsidiary inquiries. First, the challenged regulation must not unnecessarily contain provisions that entirely fail to advance the relevant governmental interest. If a regulation prohibits an identifiable class of expressive activity that does not pose any threat of the evil against which the regulation is directed, the courts will declare the regulation unconstitutional as it applies to that class of expression. See Ely, Flag Desecration: A Case Study in the Roles of Categorization and Balancing in First Amendment Analysis, 88 Harv.L.Rev. 1482, 1485-90 (1975).

The second aspect of O'Brien 's "narrow tailoring" requirement looks to see if an alternative regulation would serve the government's interest nearly as efficiently but would be demonstrably less intrusive on protected expression. Of course, any regulation could be made a little less intrusive on speech, at the cost of a little more protection for first amendment concerns. In this case, for example, adding six inches to the maximum permissible sign dimensions would surrender some marginal protection for security interests for a marginal benefit to free expression, but this sort of whittling is not what the "narrowly tailored" requirement is about. Instead, the court must look to see if the burden on speech is approaching an unreasonable level, or a serious loss to speech is being imposed for a disproportionately small governmental gain.3

The government here offers two purposes for its regulations: a compelling interest involving security of the White House occupants and the law enforcement officers and individuals on its sidewalks, and a more limited aesthetic interest in an unobstructed view of the White House for visitors.

Before considering the regulations in detail, however, I want to register my disagreement with an insistent theme in the majority opinion that the Supreme Court's recent decisions have changed the character or the mood of appropriate judicial scrutiny for time, place, and manner restrictions. See, e.g., Maj. Op., text at n. 95. I believe those decisions are consistent with the O'Brien framework outlined above.

The recent Supreme Court pronouncements in Clark v. Community for Creative Non-Violence, --- U.S. ----, 104 S. Ct. 3065, 82 L. Ed. 2d 221 (1984) and Regan v. Time, Inc., --- U.S. ----, 104 S. Ct. 3262, 82 L. Ed. 2d 487 (1984), emphasize that a time, place, and manner regulation is not unconstitutional simply because some alternative regulation would, on the facts of the case before the court, satisfy the government's aims equally well and yet not restrict the expressive rights of that particular challenger. Regan yields a corollary to that principle: A time, place, and manner regulation is not unconstitutional as applied to situations that do not threaten the governmental interest at stake if that application is an unavoidable consequence of regulating other conduct that does threaten the interest at stake. In other words, if a regulation cannot reasonably be drafted so as to prohibit all the conduct the state really needs to suppress, without marginally prohibiting some expressive activity that is harmless, it will pass muster. It seems to me the majority's approach to interpreting Clark and Regan blurs these well-defined principles into a far more diffuse deference to the government.

In Clark, demonstrators for the homeless challenged the constitutionality of a Park Service regulation forbidding overnight camping in the park. The Court rejected the argument that the Park Service should be required to adopt some other regulatory scheme to protect the parklands from overuse without forbidding sleeping by those demonstrators, such as restricting the size, duration, or frequency of demonstrations. The Court observed that such measures "would still curtail the total allowable expression in which demonstrators could engage, whether by sleeping or otherwise," and concluded that "these suggestions represent no more than a disagreement with the Park Service over how much protection the core parks require or how an acceptable level of preservation is to be attained." Id. 104 S.Ct. at 3072. The proposed alternative regulations were less speech-restrictive on the facts presented in Clark; but viewed more generally, they were simply another regulatory scheme that would have allowed more expressive activity in some situations, and less expressive activity in others.

In Regan, Time magazine challenged an anti-counterfeiting statute prohibiting, among other things, reproducing United States currency in color. See id. 104 S.Ct. at 3264-65 (quoting 18 U.S.C. Sec. 474 p 6, Sec. 504). The Court rejected Time's arguments that the color ban was too broad because it included photographs so distorted that they were entirely incapable of aiding counterfeiting. Id. at 3274 & nn. 14-15.

Writing for a plurality of four, Justice White commented:

That the limitations may apply to some photographs that are themselves of no use to counterfeiters does not invalidate the legislation. The less-restrictive-alternative analysis invoked by Time has never been a part of the inquiry into the validity of a time, place, and manner regulation. It is enough that the color restriction substantially serves the Government's legitimate ends.

Id. at 3271-72 (footnote omitted). In a footnote to this paragraph, Justice White stated that "[i]f Time is exempted from the color requirement, so must all others who wish to use such reproductions. While Time may consistently use negatives and plates that are of little use to counterfeiters, there is no way of ensuring that others will adhere to that practice." Id. at 3272 n. 12.4 In sustaining the color provision, Justice White thus relied on the notion that the government could not frame a narrower statute that adequately protected against the evil to be prevented.5

It is crucial, I believe, to consider the exact context in which Justice White wrote his rejection of least speech-restrictive analysis in time, place, and manner restrictions. In Regan, because no alternative was available that could have prohibited only the speech that the government had a legitimate interest in suppressing, the Court ruled the statute could be enforced in all its applications.6 Clark ruled that a challenger to a time, place, and manner restriction cannot win by merely conjuring up an alternative regulation that does not prohibit its conduct, regardless of the alternative regulation's effects on the expression of others. Seen in that light, the basic structure of the O'Brien test is still alive and well, and must be applied to these regulations.

The majority informs us that "it is not the province of the court to 'finetune' the regulations so as to institute the single regulatory option the court personally considers most desirable," and that the role of courts "is to uphold regulations which are constitutional and to strike down those which are not." Maj. Op., text at n. 83. Based on these unexceptionable generalizations, the majority expresses disapproval that "not only did [the district court] uphold some restrictions and reject others, it modified the content of individual provisions." Maj.Op., text at n. 32; see also id. n. 97. I do not share in that disapproval, for it seems to me the district court did exactly what it had to, assuming that its judgment of partial unconstitutionality was a correct one. The trial judge here simply indicated at what point he believed a regulation strayed over the bounds of constitutionality. In so doing he did not "rewrite" the regulation, but only elucidated what the results of his constitutional balancing permitted. The agency is always free to withdraw the regulations altogether rather than amend or apply them to conform to his views. Indeed, it can prepare new and different ones. The trial court's judgment is a clearcut one--that the regulation as written is or is not constitutional or that it may be applied to some but not other situations. For example, in United States v. Grace, 461 U.S. 171, 103 S. Ct. 1702, 75 L. Ed. 2d 736 (1984), the Supreme Court considered the constitutionality of a statute barring certain demonstrations in the Supreme Court building or on its grounds, which included the surrounding sidewalks. The statute did not distinguish between the Supreme Court sidewalk and the rest of the building grounds, but the Court had no difficulty in finding the statute unconstitutional only as it applied to the sidewalk. See id. 103 S.Ct. at 1706, 1710.7 Here, the district judge declared the parcels and sign attendance regulations unconstitutional as they applied to parcels and signs within five feet of the person owning or controlling them, but otherwise constitutional. See White House Vigil for the ERA Committee v. Clark, No. 83-1243 (D.D.C. Apr. 26, 1984) (order). If one was "rewriting," so was the other. I believe both courts were acting in time-honored fashion to decide whether the unconstitutional portion of a statute can be pared away without unduly disrupting the intended regulatory plan.

* The first group of contested regulations concern the material, size, and placement of signs on the White House sidewalk. The regulations provide that:

No signs or placards shall be permitted on the White House sidewalk except those made of cardboard, posterboard or cloth having dimensions no greater than three feet in width, twenty feet in length, and one-quarter inch in thickness. No supports shall be permitted for signs or placards except those made of wood having cross-sectional dimensions no greater than three-quarter of an inch by three-quarter of an inch. Stationary signs or placards shall be no closer than three feet from the White House sidewalk fence. All signs and placards shall be attended at all times that they remain on the White House sidewalk. Signs or placards shall be considered to be attended only when they are in physical contact with a person. No signs or placards shall be tied, fastened, or otherwise attached to or leaned against the White House fence, lamp posts or other structures on the White House sidewalk.

36 C.F.R. Sec. 50.19(e)(9) (1983).

According to the demonstators, the main problem with the "materials" provision, requiring all signs to be made of cardboard, posterboard, or cloth, is that it bans plywood signs which are more sturdy and durable and pose no security hazards. The government said that plywood signs could be used to scale the White House fence or as shields or weapons in fights, and that splinters from such signs would be dangerous in the event of an explosion.

After considering the evidence, the district court found that, given its decision to uphold the regulation limiting the thickness of all signs to one-fourth inch,

The total ban on signs made of wood is unjustified. It appears clear to the court that any sign with a thickness not exceeding 1/4 inch, including one made of wood, would be of no assistance to anyone bent upon scaling the fence. As a matter of fact, it would be an impediment and utterly foolhardy for one to attempt to make use of such a sign for that purpose. Contrary testimony is incredible. The possibility that sheet explosives might be concealed in wooden signs is adequately dealt with by the thickness requirement of not more than 1/4 inch on all signs. The testimony is that the thinnest sheet explosive is itself 1/4 inch, and that a sign of that thickness regardless of its composition has no capacity to conceal such explosives.

White House Vigil for the ERA Committee v. Clark, No. 83-1243, slip op. at 23-24 (D.D.C. Apr. 26, 1984) (emphasis added). The district court also found no evidence that any sign had ever been used to scale the White House fence, and that in any event it can be--and has been--readily scaled without the assistance of a flimsy plywood sheet. See id. at 22-23. After a careful review of the evidence, I cannot see any grounds for overriding the district court's conclusion that based on weight and credibility of the testimony, as well as undisputed historical facts, the government made out no case that plywood signs, one-fourth inch thick, posed a danger to the security of White House occupants.8 The potential use of plywood signs as weapons and the minimization of flying debris in an explosion involve security on the sidewalk itself. While that interest is certainly a legitimate one, it is far from unique to the White House sidewalk. The government's evidence on any special sidewalk dangers of plywood signs, as opposed to those made of plexiglass, was entirely speculative and not sufficient to overcome the appellees' considerable testimony that cloth and cardboard signs would not withstand prolonged use and would collapse or disintegrate in bad weather.9 I therefore agree with the district court that the government's evidence failed to establish any significant relationship between its interest in maintaining order on the sidewalk and this part of the materials ban. Because in this instance the regulation prohibits a discrete, readily segregated class of expressive activity, i.e., the display of plywood signs that present no adequately documented danger to the interests asserted by the government, I would uphold the trial court's ruling that the materials ban is unconstitutional as applied to plywood signs.

On the other hand, I agree with the majority that the restriction on size and placement of signs and on the type of sign supports deserved to be upheld. The district court invalidated the restriction on large signs on the ground that the Secret Service can adequately survey crowds on the sidewalk through elevated observation posts and closed circuit television cameras. See White House Vigil for the ERA Committee v. Clark, No. 83-1243, slip op. at 21-22 (D.D.C. Apr. 26, 1984). Law enforcement officers testified that while a few large signs might not create a security hazard, many of them would obscure the ability of officers patrolling on the sidewalk to observe the activities of persons in front of the White House. See, e.g., Lindsey Tr., R. 162 at 164-65, 233-36. Even accepting the district court's conclusion that demonstrators' signs would not block perusal of the sidewalk from other vantage points, I nonetheless believe the district court gave too little weight to the government's legitimate interest in assuring that the officers actually on the scene--those making immediate decisions about crowd management, rather than those on platforms or watching television monitors--also be aware of what is going on. Cf. White House Vigil for the ERA Committee v. Watt, 717 F.2d 568, 572 (D.C.Cir.1983) (discussing dangers of very large signs). This interest also implicates building security to some degree, since the government seeks to prevent the firing of any dangerous objects towards the White House, not merely to observe it. Those in the best position to act immediately will often be the sidewalk officers. Finally, this regulation does not by itself impose an overwhelming burden on expression: a banner measuring three feet by twenty feet is a large and very visible one by most viewers' standards.

Sign supports are restricted to those no larger than three-quarters of an inch by three-quarters of an inch and made of wood. Government security experts testified that the commonly used aluminum hollow tubular sign supports could be used to fire projectiles or conceal explosives. See Parr Tr., R. 163 at 35-37. This testimony was somewhat undercut by other testimony that the smallest rocket launcher now developed is substantially larger than the largest support authorized by the regulation. Nonetheless, the regulation was not designed to protect against projectile danger alone. Considering the stakes at issue, the district court failed to adequately credit the government's interest in preventing serious harm. The danger that hollow supports might conceal potential weapons like blast marbles and flares, possibly even explosives, was, according to the testimony, a more realistic concern.10

In addition, concerns that large supports could be used as weapons have prompted the District of Columbia to regulate the size of sign supports on the public streets, and that danger must be taken into account here as well. See Hensdill Dep., R. 145D at 63-64. The testimony did show that the regulation would inconvenience some demonstrators. Large banners can more easily be displayed with stronger supports.11 But even crediting all of the appellees' evidence, as the district court apparently did, I do not think that the burden this regulation imposes on expression outweighs the dangers the regulation addresses.

The regulations also ban stationary signs within three feet of the White House fence and attaching signs to, or leaning signs against, the fence or other structures on the White House sidewalk. The justification for these regulations is that signs close to the fence create a triangular space bounded by the sidewalk, the solid ledge at the base of the White House fence, and the sign, in which explosives or contraband could be concealed. See, e.g., Parr Tr., R. 162 at 52-53. The government's principal expert witness on security matters admitted that the three-foot regulation bans some conduct that presents no threat to security, such as simply holding a sign aloft in the zone without obscuring the area under the ledge.12 But the government claimed that a regulation requiring signs to be held aloft in this area would require continuous surveillance of each demonstrator,13 and would likely require frequent admonitions from police officers to enforce, possibly precipitating confrontations between demonstrators and police.

The challengers alleged substantial burdens stemming from the placement restrictions. They prevented demonstrators with signs but not others from sitting on the ledge, whether or not the signs are located in a way that enables anyone to conceal objects behind them.

A regulation is valid even if it unavoidably prohibits harmless conduct in order to cover similar but dangerous conduct. Despite qualms, I believe that on essentially undisputed facts, the government showed that the three-foot regulation was directed to a substantial danger, and that a narrower regulation might well be less effective because of difficulties with its enforcement. For me, however, the question is a very close one.

I have less trouble with the leaning ban. Appellees urge that police officers could look around signs, moving leaning signs to inspect beneath them, or use mechanical devices and dogs to "sniff" for explosives. But that answer does not seem adequate under the O'Brien-Clark test where a substantial harm is shown.

Finally, the government supports its regulation requiring that signs be attended at all times by arguing that unattended signs create an opportunity for others to place explosives in or under them. The district court's factual findings on this issue are unclear,14 but it recognized the substantiality of the government's concern by upholding the regulation to the extent of requiring that demonstrators remain within five feet of their signs. The government objects to this compromise, pointing out that in a crowd, police officers cannot quickly determine what sign belongs to what individual. The district court's resolution might work well most of the time, but serious harm could be threatened where a large crowd on the sidewalk made it impossible to identify a sign owner within five feet. The government is entitled to promulgate regulations broad enough to reach all instances in which a grave danger is threatened, even though they incidentally affect speech. On that principle this regulation may be sustained.

The center zone restriction provides:No signs or placards shall be held, placed or set down on the center portion of the White House sidewalk, comprising ten yards on either side of the center point of the sidewalk; Provided, however, that individuals may demonstrate while carrying signs on that portion of the sidewalk if they continue to move along the sidewalk.

36 C.F.R. Sec. 50.19(e)(9) (1983).

I have no quarrel with the majority's view that aesthetic concerns may justify some time, place, and manner restrictions on expression. However, it is equally clear that courts must be especially careful in scrutinizing restrictions on first amendment expression that the government seeks to justify on eye-pleasing grounds. Aesthetic concerns will in close cases involving first amendments rights weigh in at a lower poundage than, say, public safety or national security considerations. Because of their subjective nature, aesthetic concerns are easily manipulated, and not generally susceptible of objective proof. The danger is not just, as the majority suggests, that government might adopt an aesthetic rationale as a pretext for an impermissible motive, but rather that so many forms of robust expression are by their very nature boisterous, untidy, unsightly, and downright unpleasant for unsympathetic viewers. Distaste for the vigor with which a message is asserted can too easily be cast as an aesthetic interest in compelling others to be more moderate and decorous--and, in consequence, less effective--in conveying their message.

If, as I agree, aesthetics are nonetheless to be recognized as legitimate governmental objectives, we must face squarely the implications of applying them to first amendment cases. The government has justified its 20-yard picture window regulation by citing the aesthetic interests of the visiting public in being able to see and photograph the White House against a tranquil foreground. The majority upholds this regulation in part because the government has regulated in accordance with the public's aesthetic views, not just its own. I am not entirely sure of the utility of this distinction in first amendment analysis, in light of that amendment's traditional function of protecting unpopular minorities against majoritarian excesses. But in this case, the government has an obvious interest of its own: its natural ambivalence toward the existence of vociferous demonstrators at the very gates of the White House, attracting news coverage and often raising unwelcome complaints about administration policies. We must therefore examine the government's asserted purpose and the efficacy of this regulation in satisfying that purpose with particular care.

The evidence showed that the main complaints from members of the public involved the proliferation of large, billboard-like signs left for extensive periods propped up against the White House fence. Under separate portions of the regulations upheld today, that complaint is assuaged; the maximum vertical dimension of signs is now three feet, and signs cannot be left unattended or leaned against the fence.15 Photographs submitted by the government show that the view of the White House from the street is not seriously obscured by demonstrators with signs of these modest dimensions. See Defendants' Exhibits AAAA(1)-(14), Joint Appendix at 332-45. There was also evidence that demonstrators are generally cooperative in moving out of the way if tourists want to take unobstructed photographs. But most perplexing, the twenty-yard zone is closed only to stationary demonstrators with signs, not moving demonstrators carrying the same signs, although the latter could surely block as much of the view as much of the time.16 I agree with the district judge that in the aggregate, the evidence does not come near to demonstrating that a prohibition on stationary signs of the kind allowed under the new regulations will add discernibly to aesthetic enjoyment of the White House. To the extent that ordinary visitors carrying possessions who stop within this zone obstruct the view as much as demonstrators, the regulation moves perilously close to selectively penalizing those who visit the White House for the purpose of political demonstrations.

On the other hand, the record revealed that the regulation does impose a real burden on demonstrators. The majority brushes away their concerns with the declaration that there is no first amendment right to media attention, but I do not think that is the pertinent inquiry. When government bans stationary demonstrators from one section of a uniquely important public forum, it has obviously burdened their speech rights. If, as the district court found on ample evidence, the media are most likely to cover a demonstration in the center zone, then that fact is relevant in determining the extent of the burden and the need for its justification. It is not that protesters have an absolute right to the prime spot, but that the government must have an acceptable reason for excluding them from it or regulating the way they protest in it, and the means it chooses to implement its goal must be geared to achieve that end. The restriction on stationary as opposed to moving demonstrators, on the basis of aesthetics alone, does not, in my view, meet these requirements of the "narrowly tailored" test.

No parcel, container, package, bundle or other property shall be placed or stored on the White House sidewalk ... Provided, however, that such property, except structures, may be momentarily placed or set down in the immediate presence of the owner on those sidewalks.

36 C.F.R. Sec. 50.19(e)(10) (1983). While not deciding the issue, the majority expresses doubt that "the first amendment protects the conduct proscribed by the parcels regulation." Maj. Op., text at n. 127. I believe it does.

As a general matter, carrying parcels is not, of course, "speech" within the meaning of the first amendment. However, the conduct this regulation prohibits not only arises in the immediate course of a demonstration, but according to the district court is necessary if some demonstrators are to convey their messages at all. See White House Vigil for the ERA Committee v. Clark, No. 83-1243, slip op. at 26 (D.D.C. Apr. 26, 1984). A regulation on facilitative conduct that cuts off or sharply restricts expression itself certainly burdens that expression.

I do not think we are required to ignore the fundamental proposition that it is people, with the basic needs of people, who exercise first amendment rights. Practically, old people, handicapped persons, mothers with children and children's paraphernalia, and even young and unencumbered demonstrators can demonstrate or distribute literature only for limited periods if they are not permitted to put down their possessions more than "momentarily." A demonstration is not some kind of ritualistic marathon dance, the prize dependent on how long a participant can stay on her feet and moving. In the trial below, an organizer for the White House Vigil for the ERA Committee testified that as a result of the parcel regulation, the Vigil had been forced to curtail the distribution of leaflets and petitions. According to the organizer, carrying literature, petitions, and clipboards on which people could sign the petitions, as well as banners, poles, and personal belongings on one's person at all times, simply proved too burdensome. See Beall Tr., R. 170 at 121-22. Since organizers were not certain how many people would attend each demonstration, see id., it became difficult to gauge how much material to bring. We evidenced similar concerns about the effect of the regulation on distribution of leaflets in our opinion directing modification of the preliminary injunction. See White House Vigil for the ERA Committee v. Watt, 717 F.2d 568, 570 (D.C.Cir.1983).

The first amendment looks to realities, not mere formalities. Justice Marshall, dissenting in Clark, said:

[F]acilitative conduct that is closely related to expressive activity is itself protected by First Amendment considerations.... [T]hat linkage, itself "suffices to require a genuine effort to balance the demonstrators' interests against other concerns for which the government bears responsibility."

Clark v. Community for Creative Non-Violence, --- U.S. ----, 104 S. Ct. 3065, 3077 n. 7, 82 L. Ed. 2d 221 (1984) (Marshall, J., dissenting) (quoting Community for Creative Non-Violence v. Watt, 703 F.2d 586, 607 (1983) (Ginsburg, J., concurring in the judgment)).17 The government "cannot foreclose the exercise of constitutional rights by mere labels," NAACP v. Button, 371 U.S. 415, 429, 83 S. Ct. 328, 336, 9 L. Ed. 2d 405 (1963), and neither should it be able to lower the level of scrutiny of a law that directly and substantially abridges protected expression by calling it "facilitative." If the first amendment does not permit the government to impose unreasonable restrictions on leafletting, surely it cannot suppress the same expression by over-regulating conduct that "facilitates" leafletting. Otherwise, government could more easily discourage the presence of people at a demonstration than regulate the signs they carry. A demonstrator forbidden to set down a receptacle in which leaflets are carried for more than a moment may lack the endurance to leaflet at all, or to do so for any appreciable time.

In other contexts, the Supreme Court has recognized that the first amendment requires attentive concern with protecting the conditions that are necessary for effective communication. Thus, the amendment offers protection against undue financial burdens on expression, see Minneapolis Star and Tribune Co. v. Minnesota Commissioner of Revenue, 460 U.S. 575, 103 S. Ct. 1365, 75 L. Ed. 2d 295 (1983) (newspaper taxation); Citizens Against Rent Control v. Berkeley, 454 U.S. 290, 102 S. Ct. 434, 70 L. Ed. 2d 492 (1981) (contributions to political committees concerned with referendum votes); Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 96 S. Ct. 612, 46 L. Ed. 2d 659 (1976) (campaign expenditures), as well as restrictions on access to certain highly newsworthy events, see Globe Newspaper Co. v. Superior Court for Norfolk, 457 U.S. 596, 102 S. Ct. 2613, 73 L. Ed. 2d 248 (1982) (criminal trials); Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Virginia, 448 U.S. 555, 100 S. Ct. 2814, 65 L. Ed. 2d 973 (1980) (same), and impermissible discrimination among ideas disseminated through public education, see Board of Education v. Pico, 457 U.S. 853, 102 S. Ct. 2799, 73 L. Ed. 2d 435 (1982) (plurality opinion) (removal of books from school library). See generally Richmond Newspapers, 448 U.S. at 584, 100 S.Ct. at 2831 (Brennan, J., concurring in the judgment). These cases, while obviously not controlling here, nevertheless suggest that the burdens of the parcel regulation should not be too casually dismissed in this case on the ground that they do not concern "speech." "[I]n an area so closely touching our most precious freedoms," NAACP v. Button, 371 U.S. at 438, 83 S.Ct. at 340, the definition of what impedes freedom of expression must be a pragmatic one. The imposition of a substantial, direct, and immediate burden on expression should be sufficient to invoke first amendment analysis.18

So viewed, I do not believe the parcels regulation can be sustained. This regulation is clearly not a broad rule that, in only a small portion of its applications, has incidental effects on expression. Its application is limited to a public forum of unique national significance. Although its terms literally affect all visitors to the White House sidewalk, it will plainly have its major impact on political demonstrators who stay on the sidewalk for extended periods in order to demonstrate. Moreover, it was promulgated as part of a regulating plan targeted at expressive activities, and the burden it imposes on demonstrators must be considered not only individually but cumulatively in light of the other burdens that will be imposed by dint of these regulations on expression in the same forum.

As discussed above, the impact of this regulation will be substantial. The majority rationalizes that demonstrators can now keep their parcels across the street in Lafayette Park, see Maj.Op., text at n. 147, but even if this is feasible in group demonstrations, a bar against putting down personal or demonstration-related possessions for more than an instant at a time still represents a substantial burden, in some cases an impossible one, for individual demonstrators.

The government's security experts testified that explosives can be concealed in abandoned parcels. See, e.g., Parr Tr., R. 162 at 117-19; Jones Dep., R. 193 at 62-64. The district court acknowledged the possibility but held this danger could be adequately dealt with by a less restrictive mandate that individuals remain within five feet of any parcels placed on the sidewalk. The government countered that in a large crowd law enforcement officers might not be able to identify the owners of parcels or even tell whether the owners were present within the five-foot zone.

Viewing the evidence offered by government security experts deferentially, it is still not apparent why a parcel on the ground is more dangerous than one held in the hand, provided that its owner is in immediate physical contact with it. Continuous physical contact is, after all, considered sufficiently safe for the care of signs under these regulations; it is unclear why it would not also suffice with parcels. The majority opinion may consider this "rewriting" the regulation, but I view it as in accord with a "narrowly tailored" O'Brien analysis that will not allow a regulation if it prohibits an identifiable, readily segregated class of conduct with no demonstrated relationship to the governmental purpose asserted. In my judgment, the parcels requirement, as written, violates that fundamental principle. It substantially implicates a type of first amendment conduct that does not, on the evidence submitted, pose any genuine threat to the security of the White House.

I am concerned that the majority rationale defers too much to agency determinations and does not credit enough the district court's time-honored function of reviewing the government's evidence and making the primary balancing between its interests and first amendment protections. I agree, however, that many of these regulations meet the O'Brien "narrowly tailored" test and should be upheld. I respectfully dissent from the decision to uphold the materials regulation as applied to plywood signs, and the center zone and parcels regulations, as written.