 Remember Hague: ◦ “Wherever the title of streets and parks may rest, they have immemorially been held in trust for the use of the public and, time out of mind, have been used for purposes of assembly, communicating thoughts between citizens, and discussing public questions.” ◦ What kind of support does that give for granting access to public property generally for speech purposes?  Must the gov’t allow speech in post offices or office buildings or libraries, etc. if it is a reasonable, non-disruptive use of the building?  Or does the SCT only recognize access if there is a long tradition of expressive use of such property?

Brown v. Louisiana – SCT overturned convictions of protestors in libraries. Small, quiet sit-in did not interfere with the use of the library Adderley v. Florida – SCT upheld trespass convictions of protestors on jailhouse lawn/drive. Protestors arrested under a neutral law and there were places to express message nearby.  Jailkeeper had a right to manage property for its intended purpose Greer v. Spock – SCT upheld exclusion of political speech from public areas of military base  Military base operated like an open town in many ways (unrestricted)  Military officials allowed in speakers on non-political topics  But purpose of military base was to train soldiers so can reserve property for that intended purpose

Traditional Public Forum  Streets, Parks & Sidewalks  CB/CN rules apply Designated/Public Forum  State need not open up such property for use for expressive purposes but once it does, it must abide by the same rules as in a traditional public forum  Example – school opens classrooms to the public for meetings Non-Public Forum  State has a right to reserve property for its intended use. Regulations of speech will be upheld as long as they are reasonable and not an effort to suppress a particular viewpoint

SCT found the mailboxes were a non-public forum. Why weren’t they a designated public forum? Does Perry require that government officials open the property to the general public to make it a designated public forum? What is the meaning of footnote 7 (forum for a limited purpose) – is this different from a designated forum or a non-public forum?

If government can’t discriminate based on content in a designated public forum, how can it only open forum to “entities of a similar character” (n.7) and still have a designated public forum rather than a non-public forum? Can we reconcile (if that is possible)?  Sol’n 1: Gov’t can create a limited public forum which is a sub-category of a designated forum.  Such forums are open only to certain subject matters or to certain speakers but within those established parameters, the same rules apply as apply in a traditional public forum.  Must distinguish between legitimate content distinctions pertaining to the parameters of the forum and illegitimate content discrimination once speech is allowed in the forum. Sol’n 2: Limited public forums are gov’d by rules in non-public forums (reasonable and viewpoint neutral restrictions) SCT has recognized the limited public forum as a separate, 4 th forum but it’s not quite clear yet what that means – more later.

Under Perry, even in a non-public forum, the government cannot engage in viewpoint-based discrimination. Was the school’s refusal to allow the rival union access to the teacher’s mailbox in Perry viewpoint neutral as the majority believed?