My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
RulesCommunications Highlights 2008 1204
CityHall
>
City Clerk
>
City Council
>
Committees
>
Rules & Communications Committee
>
RulesCommunications Highlights 2008 1204
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/12/2008 9:47:51 AM
Creation date
12/12/2008 9:47:51 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CM City Clerk-City Council
CM City Clerk-City Council - Document Type
Committee Highlights
Document Date (6)
12/4/2008
Retention
PERM
Document Relationships
_CC Agenda 2008 1215
(Reference)
Path:
\City Clerk\City Council\Agenda Packets\2008\Packet 2008 1215
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
13
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
To: Rules and Communications Committee <br />From: Jayne W. Williams, City Attorney <br />Re: Use of City Facilities by Candidates <br />Date: October 22, 2008 <br />Page: 2 <br />content, such regulation is subject to strict scrutiny.3 Typically, designated public forums are <br />noticed or advertised to inform the community of the purposes for which the forum that is usually <br />nonpublic is made public. <br />Nonpublic Forum: A nonpublic forum is public property which is not dedicated to general debate or <br />the free exchange of ideas. With regard to a nonpublic forum, "the government is free to restrict <br />access'as long as the restrictions are reasonable and [are] not an effort to suppress expression <br />merely because public officials oppose the speaker's view"'4 Internal City Hall offices or other <br />government facilities not open to the public for specific reasons (workspaces, storage, preservation <br />of security, for example) are traditional nonpublic forums, <br />2. Reasonable Restrictions on Use of Public Facilities <br />City facilities made available for public use constitute designated public forums. Generally, policies which <br />distinguish between favored or disfavored categories of speech are content-based. Therefore, a policy <br />which precludes city facilities from being used by candidates or for political purposes would likely be <br />considered content-based. Pursuant to both the state and the federal constitutions, policies which regulate <br />protected speech and activities within a designated public forum, based on the content of the speech, are <br />subject to strict scrutiny,5 <br />Content-Based Restrictions: Although the City is limited in its ability to restrict constitutionally <br />protected activity in a designated public forum, the City can impose reasonable time, place and <br />manner restrictions on the use of such public facilities. Once the City opens public facilities "to the <br />public for expressive activities, the [City] may establish and enforce 'reasonable, time, place and <br />manner regulations' as long as they are (1) content neutral, (2) are narrowly tailored to serve a <br />significant governmental interest, and (3) leave open ample alternative channels of <br />communication."6 Accordingly, in order for the City to "enforce [such] acontent-based exclusion it <br />must show that its regulation is necessary to serve a compelling state interest and that it is narrowly <br />drawn to achieve that end."~ <br />3 White v. Cify of Norwalk, 900 F.2d 1421 (9~h Cir. 1990). (Constitutionality of regulating speech in city council chambers.). <br />a Hopper v. Cify of Pasco, 241 F. 3d 1067 (9~h Cir. 2001). (Constitutionality of policy which excluded controversial art from city hall <br />gallery. Court held that city policy which opened city hall for display of art work made city hall a designated public forum from <br />which art work could only be excluded when necessary to serve a compelling government interest.). <br />s U.C. Nuclear Weapons Labs Conversion Project v. Lawrence Livermore Lab, 154 Cal.App.3d 1157, 1170 (1984). (Court <br />examined whether federally owned laboratory was required to allow antinuclear group to use laboratory visitor center which was <br />regularly made available for use by other groups. Court held that laboratory action to exclude antinuclear group from use of <br />laboratory visitor center violated state constitution where group's use was compatible with purpose and function of the visitor's <br />center.). <br />s Khademi v. South Orange County Community College District, 194 F.Supp.2d 1011, 1024 (2002) (quoting Gonzales v. Superior <br />Court, 180 Cal.App.3d 1116, 1125 (1986)). (Group of students sued the South Orange County Community College District on the <br />grounds that policy which regulated their expressive rights with regard to the use of campus facilities violated the First <br />Amendment. Court held that portions of district policy which were in place lacked a compelling government interest to violate the <br />state and federal constitutions.). <br />~ Khademi, 194 F.Supp.2d at 1024. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.