1 / 5

Perry Educ. Ass’n – The Modern Approach to Access to Government Property

Perry Educ. Ass’n – The Modern Approach to Access to Government Property. Traditional Public Forum Streets, Parks & Sidewalks CB/CN rules apply Designated/Limited Public Forum

aerona
Download Presentation

Perry Educ. Ass’n – The Modern Approach to Access to Government Property

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Perry Educ. Ass’n – The Modern Approach to Access to Government Property • Traditional Public Forum • Streets, Parks & Sidewalks • CB/CN rules apply • Designated/Limited Public Forum • State need not open up for expressive purposes but if does, must abide by same rules as in a traditional public forum • State can close this type of forum • Limited Public Forum (certain speakers/subjects) – trend seems to be to apply reasonableness/VP discrimin rules as in non-public forum • Non-Public Forum • State has a right to reserve property for its intended use. Regulations of speech upheld as long as they are reasonable and not an effort to suppress a particular viewpoint.

  2. More on non-public fora & viewpoint discrimination • Cornelius - CFC involved a voluntary fundraising drive in federal workplace conducted during work hours. Executive Order limited it to “voluntary, tax-exempt, non-profit, charitable agencies that provide direct health and welfare services” & excluded legal defense and political advocacy groups. • What kind of forum was the CFC? Do you agree with Justice O’Connor’s characterization? • Was the exclusion of legal defense and political advocacy groups based on viewpoint?

  3. Kokinda– when is a public forum not a public forum? • Why weren’t the post office sidewalks a public forum? • Does the opinion make sense? What are it’s implications? • Are there ways of limiting it’s reach? • Does Kokinda suggest that public fora can be privatized – i.e., converted to private ownership and thus closed?

  4. Rosenberger v. Rectors and Visitors of UVA • SAF created from mandatory student fees of students at UVA • Certain student groups are eligible to receive funds from SAF if they are “related to the educational purpose of the University” – includes student newspapers • Certain students groups’ activities are excluded from eligibility for SAF funds – religious activities, political activities (electioneering and lobbying) – the latter definition is designed to ensure that funding exclusions are not based on ideological status • WAP was denied funding for its newspaper because it was a religious activity – challenged the denial as violating freedom of speech

  5. Rosenberger, cont’d • What kind of forum is the SAF? Limited or non-public? Why? • Why doesn’t the exclusion of some speakers make this a non-public forum as was the case in Cornelius? • What kind of exclusion is the exclusion of “religious activity” – VP or SM? Why does it matter?

More Related