541 (1992). Put another way, the State may regulate expression on non-content grounds through “reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions.” The Supreme Court cases teach that the “principal inquiry in determining content neutrality in speech cases generally and in time, place, or manner cases in particular, is whether the government has adopted a regulation of speech because of disagreement with them message it conveys.” Ward v. Rock Against Racism, 491 U.S. 781, 791, 109 S.Ct. 2746, 105 L.Ed.2d 661 (1989). Under this test, the State’s action in moving all newsracks to a concrete pad appears content-neutral. It did not differentiate based on the content of the speech. Cf. City of Cincinnati v. Discovery Network, Inc., 507 U.S. 410, 428-429, 113 S.Ct. 1505, 123 L.Ed.2d 99 (1993)(<HOLDING>). Like the ban on posted signs which the
holding ban on newsracks to be contentbased because determining whether a newsrack fell within ban required reference to a publications content holding that the ban on judicial review of actions committed to agency discretion by law is jurisdictional holding ban violated the sherman act holding that cincinnati could not ban commercial newsracks from public property while allowing noncommercial newsracks even if  the city might entirely prohibit the use of newsracks on public property holding that an ordinance exempting certain signs from a general sign ban was an unconstitutional contentbased restriction on speech