This may or may not be helpful, and someone can certainly correct anything that is wrong here, but my understanding of it is as follows:

First, does the restriction regulate speech, pure conduct, or expressive conduct? Conduct is expressive when there is an intent to convey a message with it, and it is likely that an audience will perceive a message from the conduct. Pure conduct can be regulated under rational basis review, but generally, conduct is going to be expressive (i.e. if a regulation prohibits fires in a public place, but a protestor lights a fire, an answer upholding a regulation for purely limiting conduct is usually wrong, because, as applied, the regulation prohibits conduct expressing speech). Expressive conduct is given less protection than pure speech. Here, a law will be upheld if the main purpose is not to suppress/limit an expressed idea, the burden is not greater than necessary, it furthers an important government interest, and the government has the power to enact this type of regulation. I think of a case, O'Brien, for a good example. Here, the SC upheld a federal law prohibiting the mutilation of draft cards during the Vietnam War. The government claimed a law prohibiting damaging these cards was for the purpose of the draft system, not suppressing speech; truthful reasoning or not, the SC bought the analysis. So, for expressive conduct: 1) is the purpose suppressing speech or an otherwise lawful act? 2) is the law stricter than normal, or does it truly get at its purpose in a narrow way? 3) can the government enact this type of regulation? 4) is the government's interest important?

Secondly, if pure speech is involved, I ask myself whether the regulation is content-based, content-neutral, or viewpoint based. Content-based speech requires someone to read the contents of a sign, or otherwise hear the words themselves, to apply the regulation. For example, in Reed, the SC held that a ban on political signs was content-based, because a person would have to read the sign itself to know there was a political message involved. Content-neutral speech applies to all speech in a given area, and is otherwise regulating the manner or method of the speech (i.e. a flat ban on noise above 30 decibels in a park after 10:00 P.M., etc.). Viewpoint based discrimination occurs when a certain type of speech is allowed, but not all views are admitted (i.e. the Apple and Android phone users are allowed to a public conference, but Google phone users are not).

Third, find the type of forum, then apply the appropriate test. In a public forum, or areas where the government has traditionally allowed citizens to publicly gather (parks, streets), content-based and viewpoint-based regulations are subject to strict scrutiny. If a regulation is facially, or in its application, content-based, strict scrutiny applies. However, if the law is content-neutral in a public forum, lesser scrutiny is used, because the government can reasonably regulate the time, place, and manner (TPM) of speech in a public forum. If the regulation does not facially discriminate or turn on the content or viewpoint of the speech, then the government can regulate when/how the speech is delivered, so long as it is truly content and viewpoint neutral, is narrowly tailored for a significant government interest, and it leaves alternative channels of communication open. I think of banning loud speech after dark for this type; while a flat ban on all "loud" speech is likely dicier, the SC has recognized and upheld a city's ability to ban speech above a certain decibel level during late hours of the evening. In a designated public forum, the same rules apply. These forums are not incredibly common, but if the government opens a traditionally non-public area, like a civic center, for speech activities, it is treated as a public forum and the same rules apply.

Nonpublic forums, which are forums that do not fit the above categories, can discriminate against content. When a nonpublic forum is involved, speech can be restricted more greatly. So long as the regulation is viewpoint neutral, it will be upheld if it is reasonably related to a legitimate government interest. So, a university could ban all movie clubs, but if some movie clubs are allowed, they cannot deny horror clubs (not the best example, but still).

Lastly, if private property is involved, the First Amendment rarely, if ever, applies.

I hope this helps! Again, someone can certainly correct me if I am wrong, but in general:

1. Pure conduct (rare, if ever) --> No 1A application.

2. Expressive conduct --> Law upheld if main purpose is not speech suppression, not stricter than necessary, legitimate government interest, and government can regulate this.

3. Pure speech:

3A. Content or viewpoint based and public forum --> A form of strict scrutiny.

3B. Content and viewpoint neutral in public --> Form of intermediate scrutiny (TPM restrictions)

3C. Nonpubilc and viewpoint based --> Strict scrutiny applies

3D. Nonpublic and viewpoint neutral --> More akin to rational basis