>>1520312

Public forum

A public forum, also called an open forum, is open to all expression that is protected under the First Amendment. Streets, parks, and sidewalks are considered open to public discourse by tradition and are designated as traditional public forums. The government creates a designated public forum when it intentionally opens a nontraditional forum for public discourse. Limited public forums, such as municipal meeting rooms, are nonpublic forums that have been specifically designated by the government as open to certain groups or topics. Traditional public forums cannot be changed to nonpublic forums by governments.

The use of public forums generally cannot be restricted based on the content of the speech expressed by the user. Use can be restricted based on content, however, if the restriction passes a strict scrutiny test for a traditional and designated forum or the reasonableness test for a limited forum. Also, public forums can be restricted as to the time, place and manner of speech. In the 1972 case Grayned v. City of Rockford, the Supreme Court found that "The nature of a place, the pattern of its normal activities, dictate the kinds of regulations of time, place, and manner that are reasonable." In determining what is reasonable, the Court stated that "[the] crucial question is whether the manner of expression is basically incompatible with the normal activity of a particular place at a particular time." Thus, protesters have the right to march in support of a cause, but not on a public beach during the middle of the day with bullhorns.

http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/designatedforum.htm

Rosenberger v University of Virginia demonstrates that a limited public forum need not be a physical place. In Rosenberger, the Court found that Virginia had created a limited public forum when it established a fund that would cover the cost of publications by eligible student groups. Once having created such a forum (which, of course, it was under no obligation to do), Virginia could not refuse funding to a student organization because of the overtly religious nature of its publication

>>1520334

now you're getting it

>>1520358

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/16pdf/15-1194_08l1.pdf

peckinham was the basis for a lot of 2017 judgements

>>1520358

https://www.publicknowledge.org/news-blog/blogs/packingham-and-the-public-forum-doctrine-implications-for-copyright

The Supreme Court's recent decision in Packingham v. North Carolina struck down, as unconstitutional under the First Amendment, a state law making it a felony for registered sex offenders to access social media websites. The decision has wide-ranging potential implications for technology law, especially on matters of rights to access the internet, which are particularly important for marginalized and disenfranchised voices in our society.

>>1520412

https://www.publicknowledge.org/news-blog/blogs/packingham-and-the-public-forum-doctrine-implications-for-copyright

The Supreme Court's recent decision in Packingham v. North Carolina struck down, as unconstitutional under the First Amendment, a state law making it a felony for registered sex offenders to access social media websites. The decision has wide-ranging potential implications for technology law, especially on matters of rights to access the internet, which are particularly important for marginalized and disenfranchised voices in our society.

>>1520476

this is not a game. the same spray paint appears in midwestern meth towns. and on their women.

>>1520519

cmon you can give us more than that

https://www.georgetownlawtechreview.org/the-great-forum-first-amendment-protections-online-may-depend-on-how-the-internet-is-viewed/GLTR-12-2017/

The Court reversed the North Carolina Supreme Court and declared the statute unconstitutional and violative of the First Amendment.21 The Court emphasized the principle that “all persons have access to places where they can speak and listen, and then, after reflection, speak and listen once more.”22 The Court summarized the vast informational capabilities of popular social media and networking sites such as Facebook, Twitter, and LinkedIn, all sites that were inaccessible to registered sex offenders under the North Carolina law.23 While acknowledging the seriousness of the crimes committed by registered sex offenders, the Court ultimately concluded that “to foreclose access to social media altogether is to prevent the user from engaging in the legitimate exercise of First Amendment rights.”24 The Court situated its ruling in the context of a rapidly changing technological environment.25 Recognizing the nascent, but developing relationship between the Internet and First Amendment, the limited Supreme Court precedent on point, and the speed at which the Internet develops, the Court held the North Carolina statute overbroad and unconstitutionally restrictive of First Amendment rights.26

>>1520544

https://www.georgetownlawtechreview.org/the-great-forum-first-amendment-protections-online-may-depend-on-how-the-internet-is-viewed/GLTR-12-2017/

The Court reversed the North Carolina Supreme Court and declared the statute unconstitutional and violative of the First Amendment.21 The Court emphasized the principle that “all persons have access to places where they can speak and listen, and then, after reflection, speak and listen once more.”22 The Court summarized the vast informational capabilities of popular social media and networking sites such as Facebook, Twitter, and LinkedIn, all sites that were inaccessible to registered sex offenders under the North Carolina law.23 While acknowledging the seriousness of the crimes committed by registered sex offenders, the Court ultimately concluded that “to foreclose access to social media altogether is to prevent the user from engaging in the legitimate exercise of First Amendment rights.”24 The Court situated its ruling in the context of a rapidly changing technological environment.25 Recognizing the nascent, but developing relationship between the Internet and First Amendment, the limited Supreme Court precedent on point, and the speed at which the Internet develops, the Court held the North Carolina statute overbroad and unconstitutionally restrictive of First Amendment rights.26

>>1520707

take it further. if im banned from twitter, how can i communicate with the president?

>>1520705

Heres what i know. I met plenty of white young girls with ms13 tattoos, and the town i was living in is literally drowning in methamphetamine.

>>1520759

taking photos inside a scif? WTF.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230_of_the_Communications_Decency_Act