CONLAW2A 11 12 18

1. NON-TRADITIONAL PUBLIC FORUMUS POSTAL SERVICE v GREENBURGH CIVIC ASSOCIATION (1981 – 1200, 1259)1200, 1259 – NO ACCESS JUST BECAUSE OWNED BY GOVERNMENT. NO HINT OF CONTENT DISCRIMINATION. NOT TPM.GOVERNMENT MAY PRESERVE PROPERTY UNDER ITS CONTROL FOR USE TO WHICH IT IS DEDICATED. TEST IS CONTENT NEUTRAL AND LEGITIMATE STATE PURPOSE.

2. EARLIER CASES - MILITARY BASES, BUSES, JAILS, SCHOOLS AND LIBRARIES = NON TRADITIONAL PUBLIC FORUMSPEA v PLEA (1983 – 1201, 1260)1. 1201, 1260 – TPF DEFINITION – CAN’T PROHIBIT ALL COMMUNICATIVE ACTIVITY. COMPELLING IF CONTENT BASED. TPM = INTERMEDIATE.2. 1201 – 1202, 1261 – NON-PUBLIC FORUM. REASONABLE AND NOT SUPRESSING PARTICULAR VIEW.

3. 3. 1201, 1260-61 – QUASI OR LIMITED PUBLIC FORUM. NONPUBLIC FORUM OPENED FOR EXPRESSIVE ACTIVITY BY THE STATE. CAN BECOME LIKE A TPF IF SO OPENED. 1201, 1261 FN 1 – MAY BE OPEN FOR CERTAIN GROUPS OR SUBJECTS. 1202, 1261 – ENTITIES OF SIMILAR CHARACTER.4. 1202, 1261– VIEWPOINT DISTINCTIONS NEVER ALLOWED. SPEAKER ID AND SUBJECT MATTER MAY BE ALLOWED IN NON-PUBLIC AND LIMITED PUBLIC.5. HERE – STUDENT INTEREST GROUPS AND OFFICIAL BUSINESS. P NEITHER. NOT ON VIEWPOINT, BUT STATUS. REASONABLE IS STANDARD IN NON-PUBLIC

4. BRENNAN + 3 DISSENTVIEWPOINT HERE – NO OTHER GROUP DENIED ACCESS TO MAILBOX SYSTEM.WHEN IS SPEAKER ID OR SUBJECT MATTER DISTINCTIONS ALLOWED (NEVER VIEWPOINT)1. NEVER IN TPF 2. ALLOWED IN NON-PF (REASONABLE) 3. LIMITED OR DESIGNATED – HOW OPENED TPF – TPM BUT NEVER CONTENT BASED (NO SUBJECT MATTER, SPEAKER ID OR VIEWPOINT)

5. CORNELIUS v NAACP (1985 – 1203, 1263) 4 – 3 (NO LEGAL DEFENSE OR POLITICAL ADVOCACY)1. NOT TPF OR PF BY DESIGNATION. NO LIMITED PF WHERE EVIDENCE TO CONTRARY OR INCONSISTENT PROPERTY USE. THIS WAS CREATED TO LESSEN EXPRESSIVE ACTIVITY.2. 1204, 1263-64 – NON PF – REASONABLENESS AND NO VIEWPOINT. OK TO EXCLUDE IF NOT TOPIC WITHIN PURPOSES OR MEMBER OF CLASS FOR WHOSE SPECIAL BENEFIT FORUM WAS CREATED.DISSENT – SHOULD BE LIMITED PF. VIEWPOINT.

6. 1) TPF (STREETS, SIDEWALKS, PARKS) !3A) LIMITED PF - OPENED GENERALLY (SEE ABOVE) !INTENT – EVIDENCE (TRIAL LAWYERS) - CONTRACT !3B)LIMITED PF – OPEN SPECIFICALLY (SUBJECT MATTER OR SPEAKER ID) !2) NON PF – REASONABLE AND NO VIEWPOINT

7. US v KOKINDA (1990 – 1205, 1264) (NO SOLICITING ON PO SIDEWALK)4 = NON PFKENNEDY = TPF BUT TPM SATISFIED4 = TPF (D)NON PF1. NOT TPF SIDEWALK. OPEN TO PUBLIC BUT ONLY FOR POST OFFICE BUSINESS. NOT PUBLIC THROUGH FARE. NOT EXPRESSLY DEDICATED TO EXPRESSIVE ACTIVITY.

8. 2. 1205, 1264-65- NON PF = REASONABLE AND NO VIEWPOINT DISCRIMINATION. ALLOWED SOME – LEAFLET, SPEECH AND PICKET – BUT NOT DEDICATED TO SPEECH. THIS INTERFERES WITH BUSINESS OF THE POST OFFICE.KENNEDYEXPRESSIVE ACTIVITY ALLOWED – LIKE TPF. BUT 1206, 1265- TPM SATISFIED – IN PERSON SOLICITING IS DIFFERENT FROM LITERATURE OR FUTURE $$$ BRENNAN + 3 (D)1. DISTINCTION BETWEEN SIDEWALKS SILLY.

9. 2. COLLAPSED LIMITED PF FROM ANALYSIS. FAILS BOTH COMPELLING AND TPM (SUBSTANTIALLY RELATED -COULD BE LESS RESTICTIVE THAN TOTAL BAN TO ACCOMMODATE PO LEGITIMATE INTERESTS)CRITICAL ISSUE FOR LAWYERS - HOW DO YOU CHARACTERIZE SOLICITATION ? MORE LIKE SPEECH OR MORE LIKE SALE OF GOODS ?WHAT IF OK GIRL SCOUTS SELL ? EQ PRO INFLUENCEHARE KRISHNA v LEE (1992 – 1207, 1266) AIRPORT5 – 4 BAN ON DISTRIBUTION OF LITERATURE INVALID (O’CONNOR FINDS UNREASONABLE)

10. 6 – 3 BAN ON SOLICITATION AND RECEIPT OF $$$ VALIDBETWEEN KOKINDA AND LEE, BRENNAN AND MARSHALL RETIRE AND ARE REPLACED BY SOUTER AND THOMAS (THOMAS CHANGES VOTES).5 – NON PF BUT 1 SAYS LITERATURE BAN IS UNREASONABLE4 - TPF BUT 1 SAYS SOLICITATION SATISFIED TPM

11. 1. REHNQUIST + 3 - NON PF. NOT HISTORICALLY OR INTENTIONALLY OPENED. REASONABLENESS TEST – CONGESTION, TRAVELLER CONVENIENCE AND FRAUD PREVENTION SATISFY.2. O’CONNOR - NON PF BUT BAN ON LITERATURE IS UNREASONABLE – COMPATIBLE.3. KENNEDY - TPF BUT STILL TPM. BAN ON LITERATURE FAILS BUT BAN ON SOLICITATION VALID. REALLY JUST BAN ON IN PERSON RECEIPT OF MONEY. CAN STILL SOLICIT FOR LATER PAYMENT (ENVELOPES)4. OTHER 3 - TPF AND BOTH FAIL TPM (NOT SUBSTANTIALLY RELATED)

12. IS THERE A RIGHT TO BEG ON THE SIDEWALK ( 1212, 1274) ?IF YOU SAY NO SOLICITATION, IS THAT A REGULATION (TPM- INTERMEDIATE) OR A BAN (COMPELLING) ? SIDEWALK CLEARLY TRADITIONAL PUBLIC FORUM. ISSUE – HOW DO NONPUBLIC FORUM JUDGES IN ISKON CASES FEEL ABOUT TPM.ARKANSAS v FORBES (1998 – 1214, 1275)PUBLIC STATION/PUBLIC DEBATE BUT STILL NON PF. NO OPEN MIKE – NOT GENERALLY AVAILABLE FOR A CLASS OF PEOPLE. FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS OF EDITORIAL STAFF.

13. US v AMERICAN LIBRARIES ASSOCIATION (2003 – 1215, 1276)FEDS REQUIRE BLOCKING SOFTWARE ON COMPUTERS – NO OBSCENITY, CHILD PORNOGRAPHY OR INDECENT MATERIAL HARMFUL TO CHILDREN (ADULTS CAN’T SEE)4 = NON PF2 = INTERMEDIATE SATISFIED3 = CONTENT BASED, COMPELLING

14. 1. REHNQUIST + 3 – NON PF. DIDN’T BUY COMPUTERS TO CREATE PF – NOT ENCOURAGING DIVERSITY OF VIEWS. SUITABLE AND WORTHWHILE. ALREADY EXCLUDE THESE MATERIALS FROM THE PRINT COLLECTION.2. KENNEDY (BREYER) – LIKE SELECTION = INTERMEDIATE SCRUTINY. SMALL BURDEN ON FA RIGHTS – ASK TO TURN FILTER OFF. DISCRETION IN LIBRARY ON SELECTIVITY.3. STEVENS (SOUTER AND GINSBURG) - CONTENT BASED RESTRICTION ON MATERIALS FOR ADULTS. NOT LIKE ACQUISITION – ALREADY THERE. NOT MONEY OR SPACE. COMPELLING TEST

15. SHOULDN’T SAY “OK EXCEPT” – DRAFT IN POSITIVE FOR DESIGNATED OR LIMITED FORUM.SCHOOL OF LAW BUILDING: LAW ONLY – NON PFUB ONLY -- LIMITED PF – OPENED SPECIFICALLY – SPEAKER IDPUBLIC - LIMITED PF – OPENED GENERALLYNO POSTED LEAFLETS OR FLYERS ? WHAT FA RIGHTS COME IN WITH YOU ?

16. WALKER v TEXAS SONS OF CONFEDERATE VETS (S82, 1271)TEXAS REJECTS SPECIALTY PLATE WITH CONFEDERATE FLAG. VALID – 5-4.BREYER1. GOVERNMENT SPEECH – MESSAGE FROM STATES. P INTENDS TO CONVEY TO PUBLIC GOVERNMENT SUPPORT FOR ITS MESSAGE. 2. REJECTED AT LEAST 12 OTHER DESIGNS. DON’T NEED TO SUPPORT ALL OPPOSING POSITIONS.3. NOT NONPUBLIC FORUM. GOVERNMENT SPEAKING

17. ALITO (ROBERTS, SCALIA AND KENNEDY) D1. LIMITED PUBLIC FORUM – 350 SPECIALTY PLATES. NO ONE THINKS STATE ENDORSES ALL.2. BLATANT VIEWPOINT DISCRIMINATION IN LIMITED PUBLIC FORUM. INVALID. ALLOW “CHOOSE LIFE”.3. SUMMUM NOT PRECEDENT – GOVERNMENT AS LAND OWNER – SPATIAL LIMITATIONS. FOCUS ON 12 REJECTED OR 350 PERMITTED ?IF DISSENT RIGHT, DOES TEXAS HAVE TO ALLOW ALL ?DOES ANYONE THINK GOVERNMENT SUPPORTS POSITION ? HANDOUT FA5

18. GOVERNMENT REBELSLEGAL ANALYSISNOT FORUM, GOV’T VIEWPOINT – NO FORUM SPEAKING IF NOT VIEWPOINT, LIMITEDNON PUBLIC FORUM OPEN GENERALLYNEVER VIEWPOINTFACT12 REJECTED 350 ALLOWEDWEAKNESSGOV’T ENDORSED ? TAKE ALL ?

19. RELIGIOUS SPEECH ON PUBLIC PROPERTYWIDMAR v VINCENT (1981 – 1222, 1284)UMKC ALLOWED FACILITIES FOR USE OF STUDENT GROUPS BUT DENIED IF RELIGIOUS WORSHIP OR DISCUSSION.1. UNIVERSITY CREATED A FORUM GENERALLY OPEN FOR STUDENT GROUPS. MUST JUSTIFY EXCLUSION EVEN IF DIDN’T HAVE TO OPEN IN THE FIRST PLACE. 2. 1223, 1284 - CONTENT BASED – COMPELLING. CAN BE TPM BUT ONCE GENERALLY OPEN NO CONTENT BASE

20. STEVENS (C IN JUDGEMENT)NOT TPF – DECISIONS BY EDUCATORS NOT JUDGES – NOT COMPELLING TEST. BUT STILL CAN’T BE ON VIEWPOINTWHITE (D)ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSECAN A GOOD LAWYER MAKE ANYTHING VIEWPOINT ? ISN’T THIS SUBJECT MATTER ?IS THIS ON DRAFTING ?

21. LAMB’S CHAPEL v CENTER MORICHES (1993 – 1224, 1286)AFTER HOURS USE OF SCHOOL FACILITIES FOR SOCIAL, CIVIC,RECREATIONAL, AND POLITICAL BUT NOT RELIGIOUS PURPOSES OR GROUPS.NEITHER TPF NOR DESIGNATED BUT NON-RELIGIOUS PERSPECTIVE OR NON-RELIGIOUS GROUP ALLOWED. THIS IS VIEWPOINT NOT SUBJECT MATTER. NOT ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE VIOLATION. ROSENBERGER v UNIV OF VIRGINIA (1995 – 1267, 1330) INVALID WHEN FUNDING ALL STUDENT NEWSPAPERS EXCEPT RELIGIOUS. VIEWPOINT.

22. GOOD NEWS CHURCH v MILFORD CENTRAL SCHOOL (2004 – 1225, 1286)SCHOOL FACILITIES OPEN AFTER HOURS – ALLOWED RELIGIOUS POINT OF VIEW BUT BANNED RELIGIOUS INSTRUCTION.VIEWPOINT - MORALS AND CHARACTER OK BUT RELIGIOUS PERSPECTIVE NOT. NOT ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE VIOLATION.DRAFTING – SHOULDN’T BE EVERYONE EXCEPT …..

23. CAPITOL SQUARE REVIEW BOARD v PINETTE (1995 – 1226, 1288)(MUST ALLOW KKK LATIN CROSS)TPF BY STATUTE. BIAS ON BASIS OF RELIGION NOT ALLOWED. CONTENT BASED NOT ALLOWED IN TPF.PLEASANT GROVE CITY v SUMMUM (2009 – 1226, 1288) (7 APHORISMS)IS PINETTE CONTROLLING PRECEDENT ?(GOOD LAW STUDENTS SEE IT AFTER THEY READ OPINION, GOOD LAWYERS CREATE IT)IS THIS VIEWPOINT ?

24. 2. PARK IS TPF BUT PERMANENT MONUMENT NOT SUBJECT TO PF ANALYSIS. NOT GOVERNMENT AS REGULATOR. GOVERNMENT SPEAKING RATHER THAN PROVIDING A FORUM FOR PRIVATE SPEAKERS.3. PINETTE WAS TEMPORARY AND ALLOWED OTHERS. DIFFERENCE HERE ON PERMANENT.4. EXISTING = TIED TO TOWN’S PAST OR $$ PROVIDED BY GROUPS LONG ASSOCIATED WITH TOWN

25. PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTSREALLY ISSUE OF STATE ACTIONSOME MALLS PUBLICLY OWNED, SOME PRIVATEAMALGAMATED FOODS v LOGAN VALLEY (1968 – 1221, 1283)MALL LIKE COMPANY TOWN IN MARSH v ALABAMA. TPF. PEACEFUL UNION PICKETING CAN NOT BE SUPPRESSED.

26. HUDGENS v NLRB (1976 – 1222, 1283)LOGAN VALLEY OVERRULED. MODERN – PRIVATE PROPERTY – NO RIGHT TO BE THERE – NO FA ACCESS UNLESS PRIVATE UNDER STATE ACTION DOCTRINE.GOVERNMENT AS EDUCATORTINKER v DES MOINES (1969 – 1229, 1291)1. CLOSE TO PURE SPEECH. NOT DISRUPTIVE. SILENT, PASSIVE. FEAR OF DISTURBANCE NOT ENOUGH.2. 1229 – 1230, 1292- STD – CAN’T AVOID UNPLEASANT VIEWS. NO INTERFERENCE WITH DISCIPLINE

27. 3. ALLOWED OTHER SYMBOLS – SINGLED OUT THIS ONE.BLACK (D)QUESTION IS WHO CONTROLS THE SCHOOLS ? FA NOT RIGHT TO TALK WHENEVER YOU PLEASEWHAT DOES IT MEAN TO HAVE SUSPENSION REVERSED YEARS LATER ?FINALLY GAVE RIGHTS TO KIDS or BEGINNING OF INMATES RUNNING THE ASYLUM ?

28. BOARD OF EDUCATION v PICO (1982 – 1231, 1293) SUMMARY JUDGMENT FOR SCHOOL BOARDWHAT IS THE HOLDING OF THE CASE ? RESULT ?BRENNAN + 21. OPTIONAL IN LIBRARY – NOT CURRICULUM OR COMPULSORY CLASSROOM. NOT ACQUISITION, BUT REMOVAL.2. TENSIONS – SCHOOL BOARD’S INCULCATING VALUES v APPLICABLE FA CONSIDERATIONS (STUDENTS, PARENTS, TEACHERS)

29. 3. FA MORE IMPLICATED IN REMOVAL. STUDENTS RIGHT TO RECEIVE INFORMATION. TRANSMIT VALUES IN CURRICULUM4. BOARD HAS DISCRETION IN DETERMING COMPOSITION OF THE LIBRARY. BUT NO IN NARROWLY PARTISAN OR POLITICAL MANNER. WHITE BOARD COULDN’T SUPPRESS BLACK AUTHORS. DEPENDS ON BOARD’S MOTIVATION – CAN’T INTEND TO DENY ACCESS TO IDEAS.5. ALL CONCEDE OK IF MOTIVATION WAS PERVASIVELYVULGAR OR BASED ON EDUCATIONAL SUITABILITY

30. 4. 1232, 1294-95 – HOLDING. GENUINE ISSUE OF MATERIAL FACT ON BOARD’S INTENTIONS – SUMMARY JUDGMENT INAPPROPRIATE.BLACKMUN (C)1233, 1295– COMPETING PRINCIPLES. RIGHT TO RECEIVE CONCEPT CRAZY BUT CAN’T REMOVE TO RESTRICT ACCESS TO IDEAS OR SOCIAL PERSPECITVES.WHITE (C)NO NEED TO DO FA ANALYSIS – UNRESOLVED ISSUE OF FACT AS TO BOARD’S INTENT

31. BURGER + 3TO INCULCATE VALUES, BOARD MUST MAKE DECISIONS ON CONTENT. PARENTS, TEACHERS AND BOARD ARE PRIMARY = IF DON’T LIKE WHAT BOARD DOES, VOTE THEM OUT.GOVERNMENT AS EDUCATOR LESS CONSTITUTIONAL CONCERNS THAN GOVERNMENT AS REGULATOR.BUYING v REMOVING; CURRICULUM v LIBRARY – MAKE NO SENSE. INTENT OF BOARD IRRELEVANT.NO RIGHT TO RECEIVE INFORMATION IN JHS AND HS

32. BETHEL SCHOOL DISTRICT v FRASER (1986 – 1235, 1297)SPEECH AT 1235, 1297 FN 21. NO VIEWPOINT HERE. VALID FOR SCHOOL TO SAY VULGAR SPEECH AND LEWD CONDUCT IS INCONSISTENT WITH FUNDAMENTAL VALUES OF PUBLIC EDUCATION.DISSENTNO ACTUAL DISRUPTION – NO NOTICE TO FRAZER.FIGHT TO USSC ? NOT MY DAD.

33. HAZELWOOD SCHOOL DISTRICT v KUHLMEIER (1988 – 1236, 1298)1. NOT TPF OR DESIGNATED FORUM. TEST THEREFORE LEGITMATE AND RATIONAL.2. IMPRIMATUR OF SCHOOL AND PART OF TEACHER/LEARNING EXPERIENCE. SOME MATERIAL NOT SUITABLE TO THIS AGE LEVEL.3. STUDENT AND PARENT ANONYMITY NOT VALUED IN EITHER STORY.BRENNAN (D) NO CENSORSHIP IF NO DISRUPTION

34. TINKER – SCHOOL SILENCING STUDENT’S POLITICAL EXPRESSION THAT HAPPENED ON SCHOOL GROUNDS. NEWSPAPERS AND PLAYS - $$ + FACULTY ADVISORS = LIKE PART OF CURRICULUM.WHAT ABOUT LAW REVIEW OR FORUM ?DO YOU REPRESENT FRASER OR KUHLMEIER ?MORSE v FREDERICK (2007 – 1238, 1300)WHAT IS THE MOST CRITICAL TRIAL TACTIC DECISION THE LAWYERS FACE BEFORE TRIAL ?

35. WHAT IS MEANING OF SIGN “BONG HITS 4 JESUS” ?POLITICAL, RELIGIOUS, PRO-DRUG -- VIEWPOINTNO MESSAGE – NOT ADVOCACY, NOT ILLEGAL, NO SCHOOL RULES VIOLATED.1. DETERRING DRUG USE BY CHILDREN IS AN IMPORTANT AND POSSIBLY COMPELLING PURPOSE2. NOT SIMPLY OFFENSIVE HERE – REAL DANGER – PROMOTING DRUG USE.

36. ALITO (KENNEDY) (C)CAN’T RESTRICT STUDENTS POLITICAL, RELIGIOUS OR SOCIAL SPEECH. THIS IS DRUG USE.THOMAS (C)STUDENTS HAVE NO FA RIGHTS.STEVENS (SOUTER AND GINSBURG) (D)1. FA PROTECTS IF NO VIOLATION OF RULES AND NOT ILLEGAL OR HARMFUL. VIEWPOINT. NONSENSE MESSAGE. NO OBSERVER CHANGING HIS BEHAVIORNOT VULGAR OR SCHOOL ENDORSED. DISRUPTION ?CAN SCHOOL STOP DISCUSSION LEGALIZING DRUGS ?CRIME IF ADULT HELD UP SIGN ON SIDEWALK ?

37. MODERNRULES – VALID INVALID1. VULGAR, DRUGS 1. VIEWPOINT2. EDUCATIONAL 2. SUPPRESS SUITABILITY, RESOURSES IDEAS3. DISRUPTION 3. RESTRICT STUDENT 4. ANONIMITY POLITICAL, RELIGIOUSSCHOOL HAS MORE RIGHTS ON CURRICULUM AND LIBRARY ACQUISITION THAN LIBRARY REMOVALFA INTERESTS = STUDENTS, PARENTS, TEACHERS AND SCHOOL (ADMINISTRATION AND BOARD).

38. GOVERNMENT AS EMPLOYER (PUBLIC EMPLOYEE SPEECH )PRIVATE EMPLOYER – USUALLY NO RIGHTS UNLESS GIVEN BY CONTRACT OR STATUTE.BALANCE EMPLOYEE’S FA INTEREST AS CITIZEN TO COMMENT v STATE AS EMPLOYER NEEDING EFFICIENCYUSUAL FACT PATTERN – SOMEONE FIRED FOR SPEAKING IN SOME FORM. NOT ISSUE RECOGNITION PROBLEM.

39. FACTORS:1. PUBLIC CONCERN (POLITICAL, SOCIAL) v INTERNAL OFFICE ISSUE2. WHAT IS THE SCOPE OF OFFICIAL DUTIES (WITHIN OFFICIAL DUTIES = NOT PROTECTED) ?3. WHERE DOES SPEECH OCCUR – IN OFFICE OR OUT ? (IN OFFICE LESS PROTECTED)4. DOES THE SPEECH IMPEDE JOB PERFORMANCE ?

40. PROTECTED1. SCHOOL FUNDING (PICKERING)2. ANTI-PRESIDENT (RONKIN)3. FEDERAL HONORARIUM (NAT’AL TREASURY)4. GRAND JURY TESTIMONY (LANE)NON-PROTECTED1. ATTORNEY TRANSFER POLICY (CONNICK)2. NURSE TRAINING (WATERS)3. COP IN PORNO FILM IN UNIFORM (SAN DIEGO)4. AFFIDAVIT MISREPRESENTATIONS (GARCETTI)

41. PICKERING v BOARD OF EDUCATION (1968 – 1242, 1305)1. CAN’T BE FIRED FOR COMMENTS ON MATTERS OF PUBLIC INTEREST. BALANCE IN TEACHER’S FAVOR HERE – PUBLIC DEBATE WITH NO IMPACT ON JOB PERFORMANCE.CONNICK v MYERS (1983 – 1244, 1306)IF NOT MATTER OF PUBLIC CONCERN (POLITICAL SOCIAL OR OTHER CONCERNS TO COMMUNITY), NO BALANCING. HERE – INTERNAL OFFICE POLICY – INSUBORDINATION AND BREAKDOWN OF MORALE.FORCED TO SUPPORT CAMPAIGN IS PUBLIC ISSUE.

42. RANKIN v MCPHERSON (1987 – 1247, 1310)CAN’T FIRE FOR ANTI-REAGAN POSITION. PUBLIC ISSUE AND NOT WIDELY DISSEMINATED.WATERS v CHURCHILL (1994 – 1248, 1310)SUPERVISOR OVERHEARD NURSE COMPLAINING ABOUT TRAINING. EMPLOYER REASONABLY BELIEVED PRIVATE CONCERN SO FIRING VALID.SD v ROE ( 2004 – 1251,1313) – FIRING UPHELD.COP AS COP IN UNIFORM IN PORN VIDEO.

43. GARCETTI v CEBALLOS (2005 – 1251, 1314)PUBLIC EMPLOYEES MAKING STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO OFFICIAL DUTIES ARE NOT CONSTITUTIONALLY INSULATED FROM EMPLOYER DISCIPLINE.SOUTER + 2 (D)LAWYER’S OBLIGATION TO SPEAK SHOULD BE MORE PROTECTED. STATUTES PROTECTING WHISTLE BLOWERS NOT ENOUGH.BREYER (D) – PROFESSIONAL, ETHICALLY BOUNDTENNESSEE AA v BRENTWOOD ACAD (2007 – 1253, 1316) (PRIOR – AA = STATE ACTOR)RESTRICTIONS ON RECRUITING JHS VALID.

44. LANE v FRANKS (2014 – S 84, 1315)LANE FIRES NO SHOW EMPLOYEE AND LATER TESTIFIES ON CRIMINAL GRAND JURY. LANE FIRED FOR TESTIMONY.1. SWORN TESTIMONY IN JUDICIAL PROCEEDING IS QUINTESSENTIAL SPEECH AS CITIZEN. NOT MADE PURELY IN CAPCITY OF EMPLOYEE.2. NOT OUTSIDE FA JUST BECAUSE LEARNED OF IT IN COURSE OF PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT. GARCETTI – WITHIN SCOPE OF EMPLOYEE’S DUTIES.

45. GOVERNMENT AS PATRON SUBSIDIZED SPEECHPENALTY (0LD = UNCON CONDITION) INVALID1. LOYALTY OATH FOR TAX BENEFIT2. PUBLIC TV CAN’T EDITORIALIZE3. ROSENBERGER – PRINTING4. RESTRICTIONS ON LEGAL AID LAWYERS5. REQUIRING ANTI-PROSTITUTION FOR AIDSNON-SUBSIDATION VALID1. NO TAX DEDUCTION FOR LOBBYING2. RUST - NO FUNDING FOR ABORTION ADVICE3. RESTRICTION ON NEA GRANTS4. LIBRARY BLOCKING SOFTWARE

46. 1. GOVERNMENT SPEAKING A. DIRECTLY OR B. HIRING PRIVATE TO SPEAK FOR IT (PLEASANT GROVE v SUMMUM)NONSUBSIDZATION2. GOVERNMENT CREATING FORUM FOR PRIVATE INDIVIDUALS WITH DIVERSE VIEWSPENALTY IF VIEWPOINTMOST TIMES

47. SPEISER v RANDALL (1958 – 1261, 1324) PROPERTY TAX1. GOVERNMENT BENEFITS CAN’T BE CONDITIONED OR RELINQUISHMENT OF FA RIGHTS. THIS IS PENALIZING SPEECH.2. TENSION BETWEEN GOVERNMENT DIDN’T HAVE TO PROVIDE v PENALTY ON CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS. REGAN v TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION (1983 – 1262, 1325) NO DEDUCTION FOR LOBBYIST1. TAX DEDUCTION IS REAL FINANCIAL BENEFIT

48. 2. CAN’T DENY BENEFIT BECAUSE RECIPIENT IS EXERCISING CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT. HERE JUST REFUSING TO SUBSIDIZE.3. NOT VIEWPOINT. IF CONTENT AT ALL, SUBJECT MATTER AND THAT IS OK.FCC v LEAGUE OF WOMEN’S VOTERS (1984 – 1264, 1327)1. PENALTY, NOT MERE NONSUBSIDIZATION.2. IF PBS GETS 1% FROM GOVERNMENT, CAN’T EDITORIALIZE. CAN’T USE PRIVATE FUNDS EITHER. IMPERMISSIBLE CONTENT BASED REGULATION.

49. REHNQUIST + 3 (D)PERMISSIBLE NONSUBSIDY. DON’T WANT SPECIAL INTERESTS OR GOVERNMENT TO DOMINATE.RUST v SULLIVAN (1991 – 1265, 1328) NO ABORTION ADVICE1. CAN ENCOURAGE CERTAIN ACTIVITIES WITHOUT FUNDING ALTERNATIVE. CAN STOP GRANTEE FROM WORKING OUTSIDE SCOPE OF PROJECT AND LIMITS OF PROGRAM. 2. NOT FORBIDEN FROM ABORTION – JUST KEEP SEPARATE AND DISTINCT. PARTICULAR PROJECT

50. BLACKMUN + 2FIRST CASE ALLOWING VIEWPOINT DISCRIMINATION. ALL FAMILY PLANNING ALTERNATIVES EXCEPT ABORTION.ROSENBERGER v UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA (1995 – 1267, 1330) NO FUNDING RELIGIOUS PAPERS1. THIS IS VIEWPOINT DISCRIMINATION DIRECTED AT SPEECH WITHIN THE FORUM’S LIMITATIONS. DOESN’T BAN RELIGIOUS AS A SUBJECT MATTER BUT RELIGIOUS EDITORIAL VIEWPOINTS.