Originally Posted by robyng
I have a busy week this week. Not a lot of time to write messages. But I did do a little research - and
this is the most recent case I found about one's "rights" in an airport. Perhaps there is a more recent Supreme Court case - and if anyone has it - I would appreciate a link. If anything - I think I was too liberal in describing one's constitutional "rights" in an airport. And I am sure that the current Supreme Court - if asked to decide a case - would be more conservative than the court in this case.
To those inclined to "protest" - I suggest doing some research or - more to the point - retaining a lawyer and getting a legal opinion before you do something and wind up being detailed or arrested. I can't say it would be an open and shut case against you - only that you may be more at risk than you think. I can also say that it is a big pain being arrested - even if years and dollars down the road - some court winds up saying you were right. Of course - it's a lot worse if you were wrong. This isn't a game - so act accordingly. Robyn
I don't believe this applies to this debate since the activity in question was solicitation of donations and not writing on a bag. However, I am not a lawyer.
I did take the time to read
Justice O'Connor's opinion and I found this excerpt especially interesting (bolding mine):
For these reasons, the Port Authority's restrictions on solicitation and leafletting within the airport terminals do not qualify for the strict scrutiny that applies to restriction of speech in public fora.
That airports are not public fora, however, does not mean that the government can restrict speech in whatever way it likes.
The Government, even when acting in its proprietary capacity, does not enjoy absolute freedom from First Amendment constraints.
Kokinda, supra, at 725 (plurality opinion). For example, in Board of Airport Commrs. of Los Angeles v. Jews for Jesus, Inc., 482 U.S. 569 (1987),
we unanimously struck down a regulation that prohibited "all First Amendment activities" in the Los Angeles International Airport (LAX) without even reaching the question whether airports were public fora. Id. at 574-575. We found it
obvious that such a ban cannot be justified even if LAX were a nonpublic forum, because no conceivable governmental interest would justify such an absolute prohibition of speech.
Id. at 575.
Moreover, we have consistently stated that restrictions on speech in nonpublic fora are valid only if they are "reasonable" and "not an effort to suppress expression merely because public officials oppose the speaker's view." Perry, 460 U.S. at 46; see also Kokinda, supra, 497 U.S. at 731; Cornelius, supra, 473 U.S. at 800; Lehman v. City of Shaker Heights, 418 U.S. 298, 303 (1974). The determination that airports are not public fora thus only begins our inquiry.
The reasonableness of the Government's restriction [on speech in a nonpublic forum] must be assessed in light of the purpose of the forum and all the surrounding circumstances.
Cornelius, supra, 473 U.S. at 809.
"[C]onsideration of a forum's special attributes is relevant to the constitutionality of a regulation, since the significance of the governmental interest must be assessed in light of the characteristic nature and function of the particular forum involved."