state actors may not silence the speaker as an expedient alternative to containing or actually investigating the potentially lalas behavior our first amendment jurisprudence demands preserving first amendment freedoms not incentivizing threats which is precisely what the district court did here the district court erred in its decisions for several reasons the first at the same time and particularly in light of the recent history that we have school shootings and the problem of terrorism and so on i mean contained within the complaint and it was uttered several times by the chief of police require and also sergeant boysen there was a rumor that there was a bounty for twenty five million dollars and he was speaking at this event it's an unsubstantiated rumor and in fact during the depositions when i asked sergeant boyce and what he did in his investigation he spoke to kevin jones who was with kemal psyllium that day and kevin jones said that it's unsubstantiated and that there's never been a problem guard but and while he did he say more like well you know that was five years ago and it's not twenty five million dollars male he didn't basically say that there was nobody there he said that it's an unverified rumor and then we have to judge this in the context of what of the actions at that time the p three call i think it can be judged objective lee here and objective lee was it reasonable when there was no evidence that there was any sort of threat that would be carried out on this day was it reasonable to shut down speech midway and no it wasn't reasonable in this instance and i can read for you the testimony of sergeant boyce and  because i think that this is pretty clear what kevin jones told him and what the police acted on here so during the depositions it was asked  was present during your conversation with the bodyguard just myself and him and what happened i told him the information that we had received asked him if he could confirm or deny he at that time said that this is not exact phrasing from him that there was threats upon life that there was a and i'm no don't put me on some term that means death warrant that his conversion from islam to christianity jeopardized his good standing in the islamic community and that he was to be killed beheaded on sight he did not confirm eight twenty five million dollars bounty he gave no dollar amount but did confirm that the crucial here did you ask him meaning kevin jones whether or not come also him had spoken in the past he advised me that he did and did he say that there were no issues of any at any of the vents in the past he did say that and did he say that the fire would be carried out on the twenty sixth of january he did not was there any evidence that it would be carried out on the twenty sixth of january and the thought was this rumor of the twenty five million dollar bounty for it was there any evidence that it would be carried out on the twenty sixth of january you know so the police acted on no evidence that anything would happen at this event and nothing had ha unverified whether or not there is a fatwa but what the standard is that the district court is created is that anyone who converts from islam to christianity then would not be able to speak because if a fatwa is then put on someone's head then that person has a death threat against them and forever even if there is no evidence at the next event they would not be allowed to speak because of this potential death threat even though there's no evidence  somebody going to kill this man the police have some obligation to make sure the police have the obligation to protect the first amendment freedoms of a peaceful speaker and work with the parents of those children because quite frankly there is no threat at all that there would be any sort of bomb at the school there was no credible threat at all to this  been i would say kind of expanded in terms of whether or not these events were actually going on and how many people are at the school it was seven fifty pm at night we know that one of the events a swimming practice had already ended and the police actually didn't go into the gymnasium or the wrestling room and they didn't go into the wrestling room until after everything occurred if you are to believe there had been a letter written to this man that you don't have something in writing or something other than what you're referring to as a rumor that would be different to the difference certainly if there's a bomb threat an actual bomb threat and that's very different and the school district has policies for how to handle actual bomb threats to make sure that everyone is safe here there was absolutely no evidence there was no direct threat at all and studded this gentleman has been speaking all over the country and has never had any sort of issue with the rumor come forward it came from a person who was at the event so that it was common knowledge that mr skilling had been a i think it was described as he previously been a terrorist correct that would was about the description that's correct and the school had information about his his history and the content of his speech at the time they approve the use of the facility for that purpose correct the school district did not ask who would be speaking at the event they knew that the event would be something that would be open to the public they knew the general theme of the event but they did not ask for a list of speakers for who would be at the and there had been no threat there adventure no suspicious activity from anyone in the crowd anyone at the event there had been nothing that had had triggered this other than the knowledge that there is or yes your honor so in terms of the basics motion the court applied the wrong standard the court did not accept all of the the plaintiff's factual accusations or allegations as true in the complaint instead the court disregarded all of the allegations that spoke to the fact that there was no threat to this event and that it didn't meet the constitutional standard and it certainly doesn't meet the this court's constitutional standard from the on back decision in bible believers that the police must first do their due diligence you know what type of so it  they just report bifurcated the case and with the city of allegan and the chief of police they allowed them to file a twelve b six motion to dismiss with the school district in the school district defendants they instead did not allow it to be six motion but engaged in a limited amount of discovery and then there were summary judgment motions in the district court granted summary judgment favor of the school district and that's correct and its decision is in error as a matter of law and then the plaintiffs are also challenging the decision on the summary judgment motion against the school district and your honor is correct in saying that that would be finished if this court were to rule on the rule sixty eight aspect of that case so there was an offer  was made there was exceptions within the fourteen days which is pursuant to the language of rule sixty eight it was in acceptance in full at the end of the acceptance in full and there was language requesting for the distribution of the five hundred dollars to the different plaintiffs it was simply a clarification and did nothing to change the acceptance been at any terms just the distribution requests it was a request it was not a counteroffer the language of the acceptance itself says that we accept your offer and fall thank your honour's tom our for the city of allegheny and for its police chief richard boyer we've agreed to split our time in half your honor i think that i heard a question that made me think that there are two aspects to this case from my point of view there is the lawyers aspect what would be the exposure to the school to the city if something did go wrong and then there's a human aspect of if your police chief lawyer and you have heard from the bodyguard that there have been death threats which is an allegation in the complaint and if you have heard that there is a twenty five million dollar bounty on this speaks head which is also an allegation in the complaint and if the without knowing every single allegation of the complaint that the judge may have referred to here's what she did rely on and here's what specifically is in the complaint she relied to judge nothing on the fact that the bodyguard said there have been death threats on this individual it's a true statement from the complaint she relied on the fact that there had been a claim by a woman that there's a twenty five million out of bounty on this person's head that's an allegation in the complaint and she relied on the fact that the bodyguard kevin jones did not say false there has been no bounty he said yeah it's a rumor i don't know what the amount is that's an allegation in the complaint i think those are the principal allegations that the judge did rely on enrichment conclusion if counsel saying there are other allegations that judge neff relied on that were not correct that's not i don't think there was a focus of decision nor do i think it's a focus of my argument because i think the judge we're right to focus on what she did how does the bible believers case from the circuit affect your position i don't think it put it this way it's such a different case that it doesn't have any impact on judge now it's twelve b six rolling in my opinion there is no well it's a public form without question it's not a high school it's not a circumstance where the your position is the high school if i'm on public form the high school is in my mind is a nonpublic for what about those arguments that well the high school is open to anybody who goes out applications so long as they pay the fee and there's no completing of and so it's pretty public well i think you hit it with the so long as if it were truly a designated public forum then it would be open for indiscriminate use by anyone who came but it's not at most it would be in my mind a limited public forum where he said for this purpose and this night for what you've told me is this free speech of that for ninety bucks you can rent the room had you told me for example that the man had had a bounty put on his head or had you told me that there had been death threats maybe a better night would have been when these other two events were not going on the school or maybe and then of them we could have had people to screen the people who are coming in the door i don't quite understand this public forum problem and location this is a public forum right here i guess this is a public institution yet we've got a lot of rules well what you can say and what you can say so those rules have to be molded for purpose of the place so i don't know exactly what the public forum category really implies a case like this the designation of the forum will decide  what the standard of review is to be if there were a public forum which there would not to be strict scrutiny in a nonpublic form or a limit to strict scrutiny right here in this public forum or mr there we have strict scrutiny right here in this public forum this is clearly a public forum and if someone interfered with constitutional first amendment rights they would have to justify that with a compelling state interest that strictly served by the means because this is a public forum where the school is a nonpublic form or at most a limited public forum it's a different standard of review there wuz a compelling interest in any of that the safety and the means that were chosen which is the event there was not an active actual threat does that exception that you argue hold i don't know if there was no threat that and did whatever i don't think that by any means all the decision making especially after is what ideally one would want to be but to go to the the first point we know there was a death threat because the body guard said so even if we could not verify that at that time in the next twenty minutes in the next half hour and verified subsequently if subsequently rolls around which is a a cavalier way of saying if something happens then and we ignored that threat we can have a first amendment is the huge freedom or religion or you want to say here this is just based on rumor you've got to be something more than that and order food but off speech the sky and and and this is pretty close and situation here unless there's some substance obviously if there is real substance to quote the rumor that dispersant may be attacked right there then that's a completely different problem so that it's important how much justification there is for the rumor right angry and years now allegation answer that let me just add on to judge the merits so so in responded to his marriage i want you to focus on the fact that you said the bounty on his head the death threats that's the problem and so we stopped the proceeding in its speech but we can sort about somebody coming in trying to execute the part where they are but you don't require him to leave the building and you don't require other people to live there you leave the building so  the threat really it's not abated because he still own property and other people are still in property linked to the question becomes their judges having made the choice to and that free speech  event which of course is what's at issue here and then not acting better more appropriately after the fact does that then say to the school to the chief to the city you had no right to stop reacted appropriately or not i don't think it would be i don't think it would get past the twelve besides i don't think it's sufficient to state the claim now when you have an allegation in the complaint that says paragraph one twenty four the complaint kevin jones the body guard allegation he stated there had been death threats directed at kemal celine the speaker from the slamming extremists in the past this is something he has said to the police if you and the bounty bally's part of the rumor right well there is the rumor of the bounty sir and then there's the the bodyguard as a member of the bounty the police were approached by a woman who said there's a twenty five million dollars bounty and i'm not sure if i've answered the questions your honor to get you up  is no basis for finding the school liable here they have not alleged individual liability against mr mallard they've only alleged official capacity and there is no policy or procedure of the school that violated in any of their rights this was an isolated incident this school is a small school in a rural area previously it's provided access to its event room to use sports groups you theatre groups those types of things or never been any controversy where they had to balance safety with the  body if they're going to give access to a certain type of group then they can't limit their access based on for example the content of their speech and that type of thing so they don't quite have the same rights as a private group however public well your honor first of all the high school is a non public forum and there are limitations on who they would allow to use these rooms that they require an application they were a courier you pay a fee and they look at whether there are conflicts or now if plaintiffs had told the school about m spac ground and the fact that he claims that there is a bounty on his head in fact that's where the rumor comes from is mr salim wrote a book called blood of lambs where he claims he has a bounty on his head he claims he's there's been a cessation yes and if you if they've got a bounty on my head oh yes that there's a fatwa against him and but if you look at my brief i cited an e mail sent by willis age will a sage is one of the plaintiffs he's the one who did the footwork to arrange this he sent the e mail on january fourth about three weeks before this event trying to promote it to the people they wanted to attend and in the e mail he said that kemal solem speaks around the country despite the fact there's a price on his head so he's saying there's a bounty but but more importantly getting back to the the forum analysis the school does limit who can use their facilities and they would have found there was a conflict here had they known that there was a a bounty on this gentleman's head that there was a issue of a fatwa they didn't they never plaintiffs never told the school they were going to have an ex terrorist here who may have a bounty on his head who there are there was a fatwa issued they didn't explain any of that to them all they so told the school was that they were going to have an event promoting  a curriculum in schools where the constitution would be taught and promoted the school had no information if they had if the understand that they said they didn't have that information i want to go quickly because i know your time i because it seems that they're inconsistent positions put forth you know a one on one point you know the opera with was made and then fairly shortly there after the midst of all the things that my clients are reconsidering the  or explain to them the implications before he did that he said he was getting ready for a trial he wanted to try and do something to bring this case to a head and here's your state school at all before he made about making an offer before he made the offer judgment he he assumed the offer would be rejected number one but number two we also assume for five hundred dollars the school would be glad to get rid of the case so it was an error on mr ball designs part that he freely admits now but he did not discuss making an offer with the school before he did it after he did is is to settle that case right this is settle all claims against the school does all players you know yes and all the personnel yes so that we say yes there was a yes there was an offer and th an acceptance then that will settle the first problem the case that we've had our you follow it up a it would resolve the case against the school district and mr mallard who are the only so he's the only school person left yes it would resolve that but not against the police correct that's that's the context here yes that's correct and and again the school objects to there being a judgment against them because they don't feel like they did anything wrong and one other point about the the the form analysis there would have been a conflict had the school known the full details they would not have allowed the speaking event to take place at the same time a girls basketball game was going on there were swim practice there were hundreds of people at the school they would not have allowed it on that night they may not have allowed it at all i mean even if the school board to do due diligence to find out what kind of events there sanctioning on find out who's being brought on well there are some obligation on both sides and i think it was deceptive the plaintiffs to say that this was just an event to talk about the constitution in the curriculum they they certainly didn't in engage in full disclosure with the school district sure the district probably should ask some questions but you know i think was really deceptive on plaintiff's part i mean yes i'm troubled by this question why is this  school out in the country where you say why do they have any obligation to let anybody come in there and there and why do they not have discretion like any landowner would have or building owner would have the fact that it's a school public institution is that the reason and if so what is the policy behind that and where it is that policy come from in terms of the case law that we are to apply because it seems to me there's an open question about what th t much discretion the school has as to who it allows to come in and how long they allow them to be there your honor i do believe the school had complete discretion to entirely say we're not going to allow th all it would have been content neutral that's something they could have done they didn't do that and they allowed the event to start but this is a it's a nonpublic form that says they've got discretion but if they allow that to start to start they can't stop it no no and that's not what i'm saying i think they did have the authority to stop it as long as it's content neutral is that if you allow an event to start you can't stop it because you disagree with what's being said however they did have discretion to disallow it entirely and if you look at the thing was i'm troll remember the name of the case but i'm from that they say that if someone got up and said something in the school that you don't like you can't ask them to leave where does that come from the idea that they couldn't exercise their discretion based upon their view of the content of the speech where does it come from that they do not have the authority to know what caseload the content neutrality doesn't apply to everything jerk right well that's like your question about this being a public forum actually i don't think it is a trick it's not a traditional public forum it's a limited public forum where you're allowed to express your opinions but only in certain areas in certain ways you wouldn't allow anyone to come through those doors and start making a political presentation you're not going to allow you know people to come in here and campaign for bernie sanders in the middle of argument so it's a limited public forum it's not a open public forum or so but i can answer your question your honor i don't know the case off the top of my to or your honor the supreme court answer that very question and rawson berger and if a school district opens up a dozen needed public forum as it did here than it has to abide by the rules of that worm if it decides i do like that they opened a public forum well they did their policy was to have the person requesting to have an event at the school fill out a form they filled out that form in its entirety they filled out the purpose of the event the purpose of the event was to talk about the constitution and the constitution according to all psyllium conflicts with sharia law so he was talking about the differences between  constitution so that why he that is why he was part of the event it was something that was titled constituting in michigan our constitution's principles so it was very much on point there was no deception there but whatever size of the university whatever the size of the public institution the rule remains the same if the school decides to open up a dozen aided public forum it must abide by the rules of that forum and here it did it allowed for private granted what they didn't have what they did is ten days prior to the event they arranged security you with the police as they have in the past to hold private events at allegan high school and so they went to the police  he said we're going to have come also lame as a speaker go on and google him here is his name and then two days prior to the event taking place the school district and the police department received a letter requesting that muslim not speak at the school and that he would be forever banned from the school so they definitely had warning that the muslim was speaking at this event there is nothing on tour there is not being deceptive in the planning but again the form analysis here well it withdraw the invitation for speaker to deliver a speech at the university or commencement address or whatever because it becomes very their rules the ones they like and the ones they don't why exactly do that i mean they're not going to choose somebody they don't want to hear i think they want to hear this person but then it becomes controversial and so they withdraw the invitation and that you're saying by analogy to your case that that's illegal exactly a person's identity or person's message cannot be silenced based upon no thank you very much you're out of time your honor i think if i if i may just very briefly and thank goodness that this is the rule because can you imagine how many speakers in history would have been silenced because there had been passed