Opinion ID: 541744
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Public Forum Analysis

Text: 68 Although it is not necessary to our holding in this case, we briefly turn our attention to the district court's conclusion that the subway is a public forum in which begging and panhandling must be permitted. Since the amended 21 N.Y.C.R.R. Sec. 1050.6 permits organizations to solicit, the district court reasoned that the TA tacitly acknowledges that solicitation of money [by beggars and panhandlers] is appropriate in segments of the transit system. Based on this reasoning, the district court discounted our holding in Gannett Satellite, 745 F.2d at 773, that the subway is not a traditional or designated public forum, and concluded that any area of the subway system where charitable solicitation is permitted, including platforms and mezzanines, is therefore a public forum where begging and panhandling must be permitted. However, it is clear that [t]he government does not create a public forum ... by permitting limited discourse, but only by intentionally opening a nontraditional forum for public discourse. Cornelius v. NAACP Legal Defense & Educational Fund, 473 U.S. at 802, 105 S.Ct. at 3449. 69 The district court's conclusion misapprehends the TA's intent in revising the regulation. As the Supreme Court has explained: We will not find that a public forum has been created in the face of clear evidence of a contrary intent, ... nor will we infer that the government intended to create a public forum when the nature of the property is inconsistent with expressive activity. Id. at 803, 105 S.Ct. at 3449. Moreover, [i]n cases where the principal function of the property would be disrupted by expressive activity, the Court is particularly reluctant to hold that the government intended to designate a public forum. Id. at 804, 105 S.Ct. at 3450. In the face of Operation Enforcement, there can be no doubt that the TA intended to continue its long-standing prohibition of begging and panhandling even after revising the regulation to permit solicitation by organizations. 70 Further, it is permissible for the TA to limit solicitation in the subway system to organizations. [A] public forum may be created by government designation of a place or channel of communication for use by the public at large for assembly and speech, for use by certain speakers, or for the discussion of certain subjects. Id. at 802, 105 S.Ct. at 3449 (emphasis added); see Perry Education Assn. v. Perry Local Educators' Assn., 460 U.S. 37, 46 n. 7, 103 S.Ct. 948, 955 n. 7, 74 L.Ed.2d 794 (1983) (A designated public forum may be created for a limited purpose such as use by certain groups.); Calash v. City of Bridgeport, 788 F.2d 80, 84 (2d Cir.1986) ([A] public forum can be created for use only by certain speakers or for discussion of certain topics.); Deeper Life Christian Fellowship, Inc. v. Board of Education, 852 F.2d 676, 680 (2d Cir.1988) (same). 71 Thus, the TA never intended to designate sections of the subway system, including platforms and mezzanines, as a place for begging and panhandling. Nor does the amended regulation abrogate our holding in Gannett Satellite that the subway system is not a traditional or designated public forum. The amended regulation demonstrates the TA's concern to safeguard the system and to honor the First Amendment. Confronted with the district court's holding, a cynic might remind the TA that no good deed goes unpunished.