Abstract

http://ssrn.com/abstract=1585406
 
 

Footnotes (124)



 


 



Invasion of the Public Forum Doctrine


Aaron H. Caplan


Loyola Law School Los Angeles

April 6, 2010

Willamette Law Review, Vol. 46, p. 648, 2010
Loyola-LA Legal Studies Paper No. 2010-12

Abstract:     
The public forum doctrine is like an invasive weed that has expanded luxuriantly after being transplanted beyond its native habitat. The metaphor of the “forum” was first used as a way to explain why the government cannot engage in prior restraint or content discrimination with regard to speaking, picketing, or leafleting on city parks and sidewalks. It has since outgrown these locations, becoming so pervasive that courts frequently assert that all government property must be some kind of forum. The reflex to invoke the public forum doctrine where it does not belong leads to a number of awkward results. When used in inapt situations, the doctrine does little to help lawyers and judges reach correct results, but instead introduces a branching series of dead ends, redundancies, and inefficiencies. Continued use of the public forum doctrine in these settings may hinder the development of better-fitting legal rules. A larger problem arises when the doctrine goes beyond inelegance to create genuinely unjust results.

For all of the debate that occurs over designating particular government properties as a traditional, designated, limited, or nonpublic forums, almost no effort has been applied to defining a forum itself. The law would be better served by recognizing that some locations for speech are simply not forums at all. As a step towards a better definition of a forum, this article identifies five features of a traditional public forum that help explain why these are spaces where the government must allow free-ranging discourse. It then examines the difficulties that result from invoking the public forum doctrine in factual situations lacking different combinations of these features.

Number of Pages in PDF File: 31

Keywords: “public forum”, “traditional public forum”, “limited public forum”, “designated public forum”, “nonpublic forum”, nonforum, rosenberger, summum, greenburgh, weise, pinette, southworth, velazquez, sammartano, “cohen v. california”

Accepted Paper Series





Download This Paper

Date posted: April 7, 2010 ; Last revised: November 7, 2010

Suggested Citation

Caplan, Aaron H., Invasion of the Public Forum Doctrine (April 6, 2010). Willamette Law Review, Vol. 46, p. 648, 2010; Loyola-LA Legal Studies Paper No. 2010-12. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1585406

Contact Information

Aaron H. Caplan (Contact Author)
Loyola Law School Los Angeles ( email )
919 Albany Street
Los Angeles, CA 90015-1211
United States
Feedback to SSRN


Paper statistics
Abstract Views: 1,232
Downloads: 119
Download Rank: 142,189
Footnotes:  124

© 2014 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.  FAQ   Terms of Use   Privacy Policy   Copyright   Contact Us
This page was processed by apollo3 in 0.344 seconds