COLUMBUS, Ohio -- The Ohio Supreme Court on Wednesday upheld a Cleveland ordinance that prohibits people from staying in Public Square overnight without a permit.

The court, in a 6-1 ruling, held that the ordinance did not violate rights to free speech and assembly in the U.S. Constitution, as two women who participated in Occupy Cleveland alleged.

Rather, wrote Justice Judith Ann Lanzinger, the ordinance, which requires people to get a permit from the city to be on the grounds between 10 p.m. and 5 a.m., was narrowly tailored to advance a significant governmental interest. And it is content neutral, so it applies to all people regardless of their message.

The case arose out of the 2011 arrests of 11 people taking part in Occupy Cleveland protest activities on Oct. 21, 2011, in Public Square. They were arrested near the statue of former Mayor Tom Johnson, a symbol of free speech.

Among those arrested were Erin McCardle and Leatrice Tolls. In court, they each pleaded no contest and were fined.

The 8th District Court of Appeals overturned their sentences, holding that the Cleveland ordinance violated their free speech.

The city appealed to the Supreme Court, which heard the case last November. Cleveland argued that the ordinance is not a complete ban on speech but allows unfettered and unrestricted access to Public Square during much of the day, the city's lawyers said.

Regulation of the time, place, or manner of speech or expression must be narrowly tailored to serve the government's legitimate content-neutral interests, but it need not be the least restrictive or least intrusive means of doing so, Lanzinger wrote in her opinion.

And in this case, Cleveland's regulatory aims are presented on the face of the ordinance, she noted.

The city law states, Lanzinger wrote, that a permit will be granted unless it "would (1) unreasonably threaten public health, welfare, or safety, (2) be unreasonably likely to incite violence or other unlawful activity, (3) impose excessive financial or operational costs on the city, or (4) interfere with another reservation of the same facility."

The city has a clear interest in safeguarding public health, protecting against violence and preserving Public Square, Lanzinger wrote. And the ordinance leaves open a reasonable opportunity for speech, she wrote, because protesters could have simply moved off the grass and onto the public sidewalks.

"They had unrestricted access to the sidewalks adjacent to Public Square and had 17 hours in which they could have been in the square without a permit," Lanzinger wrote. "The ordinance permits alternative channels of communication."

Lanzinger was joined by Chief Justice Maureen O'Connor and Justices Terrence O'Donnell, Sharon L. Kennedy, Justice Judith L. French, and William M. O'Neill.

Justice Paul E. Pfeifer dissented.

In his view, the city's law is unconstitutional because it is not narrowly crafted to further a significant government interest.

"[T]he ordinance would not prohibit 1,000 Ohioans, or foreigners for that matter, from marching from one side of the public square to the other, over and over, all night, as long as they do not remain in Public Square," Justice Pfeifer wrote. "How can an ordinance that prohibits one person from remaining in Public Square be considered narrowly tailored to serve a significant government interest when the same ordinance allows 1,000 people or 100 people or one person to walk back and forth through the park all night? It defies logic."