Originally Posted by
MikeMpls
The free speech booths were a SFO innovation to reign in the Hare Krishna's soliciting for funds.
This decision (also regarding Hare Krishnas) appears to allow leafleting at airports, period:
http://supreme.justia.com/us/505/830/
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/91-339.ZPC.html
For the reasons expressed in the opinions of Justice O'Connor, Justice Kennedy, and Justice Souter in International Society for Krishna Consciousness, Inc. v. Lee, see ante, p. 1 (O'Connor, J., concurring in No. 91-155 and concurring in judgment in No. 91-339), ante, p. 1 (Kennedy, J., concurring in judgment), and ante, p. 1 (Souter, J., concurring in judgment in No. 91-339 and dissenting in No. 91-155),
the judgment of the Court of Appeals holding that the ban on distribution of literature in the Port Authority airport terminals is invalid under the First Amendment Affirmed. This decision (also Hare-Krishna related) calls airports non-public fora and
allows soliciting to be prohibited:
Note that although soliciting was prohibited inside the NYC airport terminals, it was permitted outside on the sidewalks.,
The Hare Krishna decision, however, while not permitting a ban on leafletting, does permit the airport to enact "reasonable" regulations on it.
Of course, it is still open for the Port Authority to promulgate regulations of the time, place, and manner of leafletting which are "content neutral, narrowly tailored to serve a significant government interest, and leave open ample alternative channels of communication." Perry, supra, at 45; United States Postal Service, 453 U. S., at 132. For example, during the many years that this litigation has been in progress, the Port Authority has not banned sankirtan completely from JFK International Airport, but has restricted it to a relatively uncongested part of the airport terminals, the same part that houses the airport chapel. Tr. of Oral Arg. 5-6, 46-47. In my view, that regulation meets the standards we have applied to time, place, and manner restrictions of protected expression. See Clark v. Community for Creative Non Violence, 468 U.S. 288, 293 (1984).
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/91-155.ZX1.html