2002_1021_packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

When a government establishes a limited public forum, it is not required to allow persons to engage in every type of speech. In some cases, the Court has stated that the government may be justified "in reserving [its forum] for certain groups or for the discussion of certain topics." However, and this is the tough part, the restriction must not discriminate against speech on the basis of viewpoint, and the restriction must be `reasonable in light of the purpose served by the forum." A content-neutral permit or use policy that focuses on time, place and manner restrictions will be sustained. However, even a content-neutral time, place, and manner regulation can be applied in such a manner as to stifle free expression. It thus must contain adequate standards to guide an official's decision and render that decision subject to effective judicial review. Our current policy of generally reserving or preserving the Council chamber for City Council activities and meetings, but also allowing it to be used by any other person(s) on a space available basis is defensible. Similarly, limiting the Council chamber to only Council and related uses (City commissions, boards, and staff) is defensible from a constitutional perspective. This type of policy provides a fairly safe harbor and allows for little chance of claimed misapplication by city administrative staff. The reason for this is that either policy moves the classification of the room usage away from the limited fora classification. Any policy that attempts to differentiate potential users based on the tax-status of an organization, or any other similar criteria, will be subject to legal challenge, either as adopted or as applied. Failed classification schemes include those attempting to draw distinctions between good and bad music (Mozart v. Marilyn Manson), good and bad citizens (veteran's groups v. the KKK), and good and bad art. There is no guaranteed predictor in these cases when limited public fora are involved. The cases are highly fact specific and extremely dependent on the composition of the Court, since the judicial precedents are quite malleable. For this reason, r do not recommend use of an IRS tax classification as the basis for allowing or not allowing use of city meeting space. I also do not recommend any policy that would allow "non-political" groups to use city meeting rooms but disallow "political" groups to use those same city meeting rooms. Similarly, I do not recommend a policy that discriminates based on the possible political content or format of the proposed meeting. Speaking solely from the defensibility perspective, I prefer maintaining the current use policy or eliminating all non-city/non- government usage of city meeting rooms. If we allow every private group to use our meeting space or no private group to use our meeting space we stand a much better chance of sustaining our meeting room policy. Allowing some private groups to use our meeting space but not others means those who are discriminated against can always sue .• and often win, especially where decisions about who can use a room depend on the content of what a speaker may say.