Opinion ID: 2582512
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Public forum

Text: S.O.C./Hillsboro argue that sidewalks, no matter who maintains title, are a public forum subject to a heightened level of protection. We disagree. Privately-owned property does not lose its private nature because the public traverses upon it. In addition, inherent within our conclusion, that the district court did not err in finding that no state action has occurred, is the corollary that the forum is private. The United States Supreme Court has formulated an approach to the protection of free speech based largely on the type of forum involved. [24] The classification of the forum identifies the applicable standard of judicial scrutiny to apply. [25] In Perry, the Supreme Court identified and defined three types of forums. The first is the quintessential public forum. [26] A traditional public forum encompasses places which by long tradition or government fiat have been devoted to assembly and debate, such as streets and parks. [27] At the other end of the spectrum is the nonpublic forum, which consists of public property that is neither by tradition nor designation a forum for public discourse. [28] In between these two types of forums, Perry further identifies public property which the state has opened for use by the public as a place for expressive activity. [29] S.O.C./Hillsboro cite to the often-quoted United States Supreme Court decision in Hague v. CIO [30] for the proposition that [w]herever the title of streets and parks may rest, they have immemorially been held in trust for the use of the public. S.O.C./Hillsboro also cite Frisby v. Schultz [31] in support of their argument that sidewalks, no matter who owns them, are a public forum. We conclude that S.O.C./Hillsboro's argument paints too broad a stroke. The right to exclude others has been held to constitute a fundamental element of private property ownership. [32] The power to exclude has traditionally been considered one of the most treasured strands in an owner's bundle of property rights. [33] The cases that raise this issue generally concern one of three forums: (1) privately-owned shopping malls, (2) medical clinics, and (3) privately-owned streets or walkways. We conclude that private property does not lose its private nature because it is open to the public. [34] Especially relevant and helpful to this discussion is the Michigan Court of Appeals decision in Commodities Export Co. v. City of Detroit. [35] In that case, a private business enterprise attempted to distribute commercial handbills on a privately-owned bridge and surrounding property of its closest competitor. [36] The owner of the bridge attempted to exclude the handbillers who, in turn, sued alleging that they had a First Amendment right to distribute their advertisements on the property because it was held open to the general public. [37] The court of appeals, after analyzing the United States Supreme Court's cases in this area, concluded that the rights surrounding private property ownership cannot be extinguished because the property is held open to the public. [38] The court went on to say that a private property owner's rights cannot be infringed by allowing uncontested-to commercial advertising on its premises. [39] Other courts have also consistently ruled that private property held open to the public does not, in and of itself, create a public right to access. [40] We conclude that the district court did not err in making a preliminary finding that the sidewalks in question are private property and therefore not subject to the reach of the First Amendment.