Mirage Hotel Las Vegas

The United States Supreme Court has formulated an approach to the protection of free speech based largely on the type of forum involved. [FN24] The classification of the forum identifies the applicable standard of judicial scrutiny to apply. [FN25] In Perry, the Supreme Court identified and defined three types of forums. The first is the "quintessential public forum." [FN26] A traditional public forum encompasses "places which by long tradition or government fiat have been devoted to assembly and debate," such as streets and parks. [FN27] At the other end of the spectrum is the "nonpublic forum," which consists of public property that is neither by tradition nor designation a forum for public discourse. [FN28] In between these two types of forums, Perry further identifies "public property which the state has opened for use by the public as a place for expressive activity." [FN29]

FN24. See Perry Educ. Ass'n v. Perry Local Educ. Ass'n, 460 U.S. 37, 103 S.Ct. 948, 74 L.Ed.2d 794 (1983).

FN25. Id. at 44, 103 S.Ct. 948.

FN26. Id. at 45, 103 S.Ct. 948.

FN27. Id.

FN28. See id. at 46, 103 S.Ct. 948.

FN29. Id. at 45, 103 S.Ct. 948.

S.O.C./Hillsboro cite to the often-quoted United States Supreme Court decision in Hague v. CIO [FN30] for the proposition that "[w]herever the title of streets and parks may rest, they have immemorially been held in trust for the use of the public." S.O.C./Hillsboro also cite Frisby v. Schultz [FN31] in support of their argument that sidewalks, no matter who owns them, are a "public forum." We conclude that S.O.C./Hillsboro's argument paints too broad a stroke.