keester has a record that he must st have tamed a permit from the university of alabama requiring him to find a student group willing to sponsor his speech and actively join in his speech on top of this extraordinary requirement mr teacher must also supply eighteen working day advance notice of his speech just ensure that he receives a permit the burns associated with this permit process or so on or as they would be unconstitutional in so this map shows that this intersection but particularly the north east and southeast corner that they are outside of the yellow lines yes they are outside of the campus boundaries and this is consistent as harmonious with the g at this map and there's no there's no question that university means that since there there is no question because that's pursuant to a license agreement that you have between the city of tuscaloosa and the university of alabama where the city of tuscaloosa search is control and ownership but also it allows the university to maintain a set walk so that they can put in as well but as far as a sad walk some sounds what the proof before this court shows is that it is not that is outside of campus boundaries that is actually part of the city of tuscaloosa definitely gary though i mean i somewhat but knowledge knowledge that in order for it to be any type of form where the four friends aren't governed there's going to have to be some kind of governmental ownership over the property right so you take a look at it right i mean it's it's a different answer but if you think that the analysis begins and ends with whether the city owns the property then you necessarily think that it begins and ends with either the university  s conclusion yes or i do i do believe that's the case with but if it is so owned by the city and you have more particularly it is a city right of way then there really is automatic because case after case in fact there is no precedent against that not that if it is a city right of way that it can be found to be anything other than a traditional public form that's what it says grace that's what all this christmas all we held in previous beer that ownership wasn't a term  believe you held that in the in the context of the if you're looking at a government proprietor or you're looking at private property then ownership is not necessarily determine it although it's certainly a factor and so then what you look at is what causes all of that in the context of trying to assure proper proper notice to citizens as far as their ability to exercise their st member rights and so so you do have cases you have cases like two thousand and twelve decision and bob actually university property but it appeared to be city property said that the court held that in that case is a jewish traditional public form you had a case recently briley versus city of methods where we stayed in and briefed that even if it is found to be a limited public forum that there are several aspects of this permit policy that was still be unconstitutional namely its restriction the main place the court mr keester as judge barnes noted as presented no evidence that supports changing this course previous conclusion this particular sub will in front of russell hall in the heart of the university of alabama campus is a limited public forum he said he said that he has because the new he quote there is no evidence that it's been huge for anything and the policy has been that it's a limited public forum that's reserved for the education of the students it's always been that there is no contrary evidence of that and rd there are no of characteristics you look at the contempt that the government was using that settled the intent there was for people to go to the post office and there was a specific universe post office policy what maintains controls as police power over the satellites that are is undisputed in the record mr keller has conceded that numerous times and there is no contrary fact that that's what you would look to the idea that you would go to seventy five year old deeds to then the sad it what the four up would be is it contrary to blood or it's contrary i also would respond to his argument that the policy is somehow they get it because you're not required to get it permit if you're engaging in casual recreational or easily measured by the impact and the normal activities of the school and as a supreme court said granted it will always be true that the early to imagination can come up a hypothetical case to raise a question about that that's not the standard the standard is whether or not it is always for venice and clear here it's clearly not in terms casual recreational casual enclave that is devoted to higher education it is this space that is preserved for the education of the students so everything that disclose he doesn't set out in the policy is to preserve that character and prioritize based on the deed to educate students and so under the new policy the students have the ability to the immediate access to certain spaces if they want to engage in speech that's for spontaneous activity they can obtain access to any space on new policy is clear that it must be done and in fact that now they are encouraged to do it ten days before if that helps the university in terms of scheduling so it's not you know an issue that is  something like that they can plan better but the new policy is absolutely crystal clear that the requirement is spot it that is far more than was a lot about darn well remember it will go on with the exception of one campus because it was his god given right to preach whenever and wherever late see it we said if we could give him a permit immediately upon request he still would not do it because he thinks that's unreasonable but the case law is clear and it's certainly clear in light of what all arm that is not unreasonable based on all of these issues it's clear that we are in the exact same position we were before except we have stronger evidence doubt that this is a limited public or that the ground use permit in say that what he says he objects to the permit requirement there's no question about that your honor but but what he was saying he would not do was one counsel's had some hypothetical one time permit where he would still have to get a sponsorship from a willing that there's really only eleven piece of evidence that really stands out here and that is the license agreement between the city of tuscaloosa and the university and what is sad is that they retain full police and when this paper every single person and habit of that that would certainly be a logical conclusion and they would have to know somebody to contact that they would have to have somebody who did which would agree with what they have to say and that's what as a huge part of the problem that is part of this  version of the jets rosica law is not only was it messy find a sponsor who was willing to sponsor his speech but also actively participate in his speech due to doctrinal differences the ability of him be able to get a christian group on state their beliefs regardless of what those beliefs are that was not a radical notion back in the s it might be now it is no i don't i don't i think that that's an obstacle i do think it is just course but i think wh so it does require that very thing her honor if you take a look it was provided with the suggested notion of page two it says a university affiliate that reserves campus space must actively persist spade in any