Opinion ID: 2634513
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 10

Heading: Forum characterization

Text: In order to properly analyze the validity of appellants' actions, we must first determine the character of the RTC and UCCSN areas to which NSG petition circulators sought access. [37] In contending that the RTC CitiCenter is a limited public forum, RTC asserts that its primary purpose is to allow the transfer of passengers between buses, not to provide a forum for the free exchange of ideas. [38] RTC notes that before the 2001 enactment of NRS 293.127565, which mandates that petition circulators be permitted to gather signatures at government-occupied buildings that are open to the general public, [39] its policy prohibited all solicitation activities. RTC concedes that, under the statute, it was required to open its facilities to petition circulators for signature-gathering activities. However, according to RTC, neither the statute nor RTC guidelines compel it to grant access for expressive activity to the public at large. Therefore, RTC asserts that with the enactment of NRS 293.127565, the state purposefully created a limited public forum at certain public buildings, including the RTC CitiCenter. We agree. Clearly, the RTC CitiCenter was not designed [for] and dedicated to the advancement of expressive activities. [40] Although NRS 293.127565 creates an obligation for the CitiCenter to provide areas for signature gathering, the statute applies only to people gathering signatures for petitions; it does not grant rights to the general public to engage in any type of speech activity that would normally be permitted in a traditional public forum. Nor does RTC permit speech activities on its premises other than those mandated by the statute. Further, the CitiCenter is of limited space and its patrons have limited time in which to make connections. [41] If unrestricted expressive activity were allowed, the principal operations of the transportation system could be severely disrupted. Accordingly, we conclude that the RTC CitiCenter is a limited public forum, and RTC policies should be reviewed under the reasonableness standard generally applied to time, place, and manner restrictions of limited public and nonpublic forums. As for UCCSN, it asserts that UNLV's campus is a non-public forum [for which it] has established designated areas for expressive activities by the public. [42] Typically, when reviewing restrictions placed on students' speech activities, courts have found university campuses to be designated public forums. [43] However, when the rights being restricted belong to nonstudents, courts have generally held university facilities and campuses to be limited public or nonpublic forums. [44] Recently, the Ohio Court of Appeals addressed the issue of designated areas for speech on college campuses. In State v. Spingola, [45] Ohio University's regulations permitted the use of six designated areas for speech activities by anyone who applied for and received a permit. The court determined that the specifically designated areas were public forums, while the remainder of the campus was a nonpublic forum. [46] Similarly, UNLV's policies designate certain areas for speech activity by the general public. The policies state that the rest of UNLV's property is a nonpublic forum for purposes of expressive conduct. While a policy's language should not be the only factor in determining which type of forum analysis applies, UNLV's practice appears consistent with this designation and decisional law. Further, NSG has not demonstrated that its petition circulator was a UNLV student, or that he was attempting to gather signatures in an area on UNLV's designated areas list. Accordingly, we conclude that UNLV is a limited public forum and, in this instance, that its policies regarding expressive activity in nondesignated areas of its campus are subject to the same reasonableness review as those pertaining to the RTC CitiCenter.