1996 AGN SEP 17 I39 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

AGENDA REPORT City Council Meeting September 10, 1996 It is well established, however, that the City may control use of City -owned facilities even if some restrictions are imposed on speech. Even protected speech is not equally permissible in all places and at all times. Nothing in the Constitution requires the Government freely to grant access to all who wish to exercise their right to free speech on every type of Government property without regard to the nature of the property or to the disruption that might be caused by the speaker's activities. Recognizing the Government, '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,' the Court has adopted a forum analysis as a means of determining when the Government's interest in limiting the use of its property to its intended purpose outweighs the interest of those wishing to the property for other purposes. Accordingly, the extent to which the Government can control access depends on the nature of the relevant forum." Cornelius v. NAACP and Education Fund, (1985) 473 U.S. 788, 799- 800, cited in Clark v. Burleigh, (1992) 4 Cal. 4th 474, 482, reh'e denied (1993). It is clear that the general administrative buildings of the City and its recreational facilities and corporate yard are intended to be used for purposes other than a public forum. City Council Chambers, however, are clearly intended for use as a public forum and during such time as those facilities are being used for that purpose, no restriction on the distribution of non- commercial printed materials may be imposed in that area. Nevertheless, regulation of speech, whether oral or written, to preserve areas for their intended use within city buildings that are not intended for or in use as a public forum is a substantial governmental purpose and such restrictions are valid so long as they are content -neutral and do not unreasonably limit alternative avenues of communication. Recommendation Thus, the City has the authority to impose restrictions on the placement of printed materials for distribution within city buildings so long as those restrictions relate to the time, manner and place of such distribution and not to the content of the printed materials. One way to handle this issue is to authorize the City Manager to designate specific places within public buildings where printed materials may be placed for distribution regardless of the content of such materials. This was previously recommended to the City Council in April of 1994 as a valid method of restricting distribution of such materials. .-�