Opinion ID: 2634513
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: Time, place, and manner restrictions under the First Amendment

Text: When analyzing the constitutionality of restrictions placed on protected speech activities that take place on government property, the United States Supreme Court has differentiated between public and nonpublic forums. [21] Public forums encompass `places which by long tradition or government fiat have been devoted to assembly and debate,' such as streets and parks. [22] Public forums may also be created by government designation. [23] However, when the government designates a forum as public, it must intend to open the forum for use by all or part of the public for discourse. [24] Mere permission to freely go onto government land is not enough to create a designated public forum. [25] Thus, the government does not create a designated public forum by `permitting limited discourse.' [26] Speech in a public forum may be regulated by content-neutral time, place, and manner restrictions that are narrowly tailored to serve a significant government interest, and leave open ample alternative channels of communication. [27] All remaining property is nonpublic fora. [28] Within the nonpublic forum description, at least for standard of review purposes, falls a subset, the `limited public forum.' [29] A limited public forum is created when a state designates an area for speech activities by certain groups or for certain subjects. [30] In limited public forums, the state must respect the lawful boundaries it has itself set. [31] When either nonpublic or limited public forums are involved, government restrictions on time, place, and manner will be upheld if they are viewpoint neutral and related to a legitimate government purpose served by the forum. [32] Moreover, [t]he government's decision to restrict access to a nonpublic forum need only be reasonable; it need not be the most reasonable or the only reasonable limitation. [33] In determining whether a forum is public or nonpublic, courts consider the policy and practice of the government and the nature of the property and its compatibility with expressive activity. [34] Thus, when expressive activity would disrupt the principal function of the property  for instance, when the property is being used as a commercial enterprise  the United States Supreme Court has been reluctant to find that the government intended to designate the forum public. [35] Finally, the property should not be identified on its own basis, but rather, in light of the access sought. [36]