Opinion ID: 1175747
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Ample Alternatives

Text: For the injunction to be valid as a place restriction, it must also be sufficiently clear that alternative forums for the expression of [appellants'] protected speech exist despite the effects of the [injunction]. Heffron, at 654. According to the Court in Heffron, [t]he First Amendment protects the right of every citizen to `reach the minds of willing listeners and to do so there must be opportunity to win their attention.' Heffron, at 655 (quoting Kovacs v. Cooper, 336 U.S. 77, 87, 93 L.Ed. 513, 69 S.Ct. 448 (1949)). The trial court's place restriction does not fall afoul of these principles. First, the injunction does not prevent Share from picketing anywhere in the city, except upon a limited stretch of sidewalk fronting the Medical Building. Thus, the injunction is not subject to the same attack raised in Near v. Minnesota ex rel. Olson, supra , or Organization for a Better Austin v. Keefe, 402 U.S. 415, 29 L.Ed.2d 1, 91 S.Ct. 1575 (1971). Second, the First Amendment does not afford Share the right to a captive audience, [5] but rather the opportunity to win the attention of passersby and engage them in conversation if the latter so desire. The injunction does not prevent Share from picketing at a point reasonably close to the Medical Building and the people Share wishes to address. The signs carried by the picketers clearly are visible to anyone entering the building. Picketers are not secreted away in some nonaccessible location, Heffron, 452 U.S. at 655 n. 16, but are located in plain view of persons entering the Medical Building. If anyone desires to engage them in conversation, it is a very short walk to the end of the block where picketers are free to counsel. Accordingly, the injunction provides an alternative forum providing ample opportunity for communicative activity.