The court said in part:
[C]onsidering the evidence in the record thus far, Plaintiff has not carried his burden to demonstrate a clear likelihood that the City's policy is content based. Instead, the evidence strongly suggests that the policy is content neutral.
...Because the City seeks to preserve the Market as a space for its visitors to converse with each other and local artisans and enjoy buskers' performances, it has a substantial interest in eliminating disruptive noise....
Moreover, the City also asserts a related economic interest in promoting vendors' ability to sell their wares without "having to shout over someone"...