;content-neutral" time, place and manner regulation. These kinds of restrictions are acceptable as long as they are designed to serve a substantial governmental interest and do not unreasonably limit alternative avenues of communication. In this case, The Supreme Court felt that it did.
             It is not always easy to prove that a zoning ordinance of this type constitutes this kind of government interest. The Supreme Court struck down a zoning ordinance regarding live entertainment in Schad v. Mount Ephraim (1981), asserting that its governmental purpose was not proved. While this restriction was not only on nude dancing, but on any type of live entertainment, it still illustrates the importance of valid evidence in proving that a valid governmental purpose has been served. In this case, The Supreme Court mandated that the ordinance, which restricted any form of live presentation in any establishment in the borough, prohibited a wide range of expression that has long been held to be within the protection of the First and Fourteenth Amendments. More importantly, as we have seen in most or all of these cases, the "appellee has presented no evidence that live ent
             ...