Laserfiche WebLink
street could be subject to an ordinance like this? <br />MR. FUHRMAN: The rule that we believe that the Court <br />should follow is the rule of Cornelius v. NAACP. We believe <br />4 that like other publicly owned property, that each street <br />5 should be determined as to whether or not it lends itself to <br />6 the First Amendment activity. <br />7 QUESTION: If the focus of the ordinance is an <br />individual home, what difference would it make what kind of <br />9 street it is, as long as the picketing is aimed at one home on <br />10 a particular street, as the invasion of privacy is just as <br />11 great? <br />12 MR. FUHRMAN: I agree. But we have in our argument <br />13 really two propositions. Number one, we are arguing that <br />14 streets, the residential streets of Brookfield, are not public <br />15 fora. And the reason that we are making that argument is <br />16 because that establishes a different standard for evaluating <br />17 the ordinance. But we are arguing, number two, that in the <br />18 event that this Court should find that notwithstanding <br />19 everything that I have said that all streets without exception <br />20 are public fora, that then in that event that the ordinance is <br />21 still constitutional as a valid time, place and manner, <br />22 regulation of two important governmental interests. <br />23 QUESTION: It is going to take a lot of litigation to <br />24 litigate every street in the country to figure out whether they <br />25 are public fora or not. <br />22 <br />Heritage Reporting Corporation <br />(202) 628-4888 <br />