![knolls atomic power laboratory knolls atomic power laboratory](https://s.hdnux.com/photos/01/57/47/457155/5/1200x0.jpg)
2897, 2904, 86 L.Ed.2d 536 (1985), upheld the absolute exclusion of a person from a military base, even during an “open house,” without a showing that such a bar was “essential” to security.įinally, KAP contends that KAPL's decision was impermissible because it was motivated by a dislike of the content of KAP's message and that a total ban on expression on nonforum property must be “reasonable and not an effort to suppress expression merely because public officials oppose the speaker's view,” Perry, 460 U.S. In fact, the recent decision in United States v. The Court has upheld complete bans on speech at government facilities without engaging in the elaborate analysis KAP advocates. The Court has on many occasions noted that “he State, no less than a private owner of property, has power to preserve the property under its control for the use to which it is lawfully dedicated.” Adderley v. Controlling Supreme Court precedents are not consistent with a rule that imposes on government the burden of proving that every suggested expressive activity is unavoidably incompatible with the particular use of nonforum premises. KAP argues that KAPL transformed its non-secure areas outside the fence into a “designated” forum when it invited the leafletteers to use the entryway for leafletting. The third category involves property “which is not by tradition or designation a forum for public communication.” Id. “Although a State is not required to indefinitely retain the open character of the facility, as long as it does so it is bound by the same standards as apply in a traditional public forum.” Id. The second Perry category involves property made available or “designated” by the state for expressive activity. Content-based exclusions can be justified only when they serve a compelling governmental interest and are narrowly tailored to achieve it. at 955, but may enforce content-neutral time, place, and manner regulations narrowly drawn to serve a significant governmental interest and to allow adequate means of communication. As to the first, “n these quintessential public forums, the government may not prohibit all communicative activity,” id. In Perry the Court defined government property as falling into three categories: (i) traditional public forums such as streets and parks (ii) “designated” forums and (iii) nonforums.