Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): discretion” in the absence of explicit standards or procedures. See City of Lakewood v. Plain Dealer Publ’g Co., 486 U.S. 750, 757, 108 S.Ct. 2138, 100 L.Ed.2d 771 (1988); Freedman v. Maryland, 380 U.S. 51, 85 S.Ct. 734, 13 L.Ed.2d 649 (1965). Prior restraints on expression in a public forum have generally been subjected to exacting scrutiny. See FW/PBS, Inc. v. Dallas, 493 U.S. 215, 226, 110 S.Ct. 596, 107 L.Ed.2d 603 (1990) (plurality opinion) (collecting cases). However, “the context in which [a prior restraint] occurs can affect the level of scrutiny applied.” Milwaukee Police Ass’n v. Jones, 192 F.3d 742, 749 (7th Cir.1999). Prior restraints in a nonpublic forum have been upheld as long as they were reasonable and viewpoint-neutral. See Cornelius, 473 U.S. at 813, 105 S.Ct. 3439 (<HOLDING>); Muller v. Jefferson Lighthouse Sch., 98 F.3d 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that school officials could prevent a student from distributing invitations in a public elementary school a nonpublic forum because the restraint was reasonable (B) holding that the courthouse lobby was a nonpublic forum (C) holding that a federal charity drive a nonpublic forum could limit participation to a number of select charities as long as the restriction was reasonable and viewpointneutral (D) holding that a statesponsored televised election debate was a nonpublic forum and state officials could exercise broad editorial discretion in deciding which candidates to invite as long as the decisions were reasonable and viewpointneutral (E) holding that a courthouse was a nonpublic forum but an unenclosed courthouse plaza was a designated public forum
Output (English): holding that school officials could prevent a student from distributing invitations in a public elementary school a nonpublic forum because the restraint was reasonable