What was the court's probable finding regarding Keller's conviction for playing music on the street?

The court's probable finding that the ordinance was a reasonable restriction is supported by the idea that local governments have the authority to regulate activities in public spaces to maintain order, safety, and community standards. Such ordinances can impose certain limitations on behaviors, like playing music in the streets, especially if it might cause disturbances or interfere with the normal functioning of public areas.

In this context, the court likely viewed the ordinance as a valid exercise of local governance. Reasonable restrictions on speech and expressive activities can be upheld when they serve a significant government interest without being overly broad or excessively restrictive. The balance between individual expression and community welfare is a key consideration, and in this case, the court may have acknowledged the need for regulations to prevent potential noise disturbances or ensure public safety.

The other options, while having potential merits, do not align with the likely judicial perspective. For instance, finding the ordinance unconstitutional would signal an infringement on free speech that usually must meet a high threshold. Similarly, not protecting Keller's actions under free speech would dismiss the expressive nature of his activity without just cause. Finally, stating that the ordinance only applied to private citizens assumes that the government can narrowly tailor regulations without regard to public behavior, which typically isn’t the case in public settings.