Con Law Module 4 MBE Questions

As part of a woman’s religion, she was required to burn a small amount of holy oil in an urn before consuming a meal. Although she was able to burn the holy oil before breakfast and dinner at home, she needed to conduct this ritual at work before her lunch break. The woman’s supervisor asked her to burn the holy oil outside, but because she had several other religious accoutrements that she needed to use in conjunction with the ritual, she insisted on burning the oil in her cubicle. In addition, the woman stated that she had a flame snuffer in order to ensure that the fire did not pose a danger. A state fire statute prohibits any open fires in public buildings because they present a fire hazard. The woman has filed an action in state court challenging the constitutionality of this statute, claiming that it violates her right to the free exercise of religion.

Assuming no relevant federal or other state statute is applicable, should the court rule that the state statute violates the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment?

No, because preventing fires inside of public buildings is rationally related to a legitimate government interest.

No, because the state statute does not result in excessive entanglement with religion.

Yes, because preventing a religious ritual of this type does not advance a compelling state interest.

Yes, because the statute is not substantially related to an important governmental interest.

Answer choice A is correct. Neutral state laws of general applicability that have the incidental effect of interfering with one’s ability to engage in religious practices are subject only to the rational basis test. A law passes the rational basis test if it is rationally related to a legitimate state interest. Here, the state statute prohibiting fires in public buildings is a neutral, generally applicable statute that is rationally related to the legitimate state interest of preventing fires because they pose a great safety risk. Therefore, the woman is unlikely to succeed in her action. Answer choice B is incorrect because that standard is one of the three-prongs of the Lemon test that has been applied to violations of the Establishment Clause, not the Free Exercise Clause. Note that the Supreme Court overturned Lemon and has instead instructed that the Establishment Clause must be interpreted by “reference to historical practices and understandings,” and not the three-prong Lemon test. Answer choices C and D are incorrect because they apply tests (i.e., strict and intermediate scrutiny) that do not apply to laws that have only an incidental impact on the free exercise of religion.

A city owned and operated a minor-league baseball park. The city sold advertising space on billboards above the park and along the walls of the baseball field. While most of the advertising space was purchased by beer and snack food companies that also sold their goods at the baseball games, a city ordinance allowed for the sale of space to political, charitable, and religious causes. All final decisions on the advertising were solely at the discretion of a particular city official. A modern-day temperance organization wanted to buy space on some of the billboards to warn of the dangers associated with drinking alcohol. The city official wanted the baseball games to remain light-hearted and fun events for the citizens, and also did not want to risk the beer companies pulling their advertisements from the ballpark. Accordingly, he denied the temperance organization’s request for advertising space. The temperance organization sued the city and the official, claiming that the denial of the organization’s request was unconstitutional.

Is the temperance organization likely to succeed in its suit?

Yes, because the city official may not deny an organization’s right to broadcast its message in a public forum on the basis of its content unless the denial is necessary to serve a compelling government interest.

Yes, because the city official may not refuse to allow an organization the use of a public facility to broadcast a message dealing with an issue of public concern.

No, because the city official’s denial of advertising space was a reasonable time, place, and manner restriction.

No, because a valid city ordinance gave the official discretion to grant or deny advertising space.

Answer choice A is correct. Because the city opened the baseball park to advertisers of all kinds, the city-owned baseball park is a public forum. A content-based regulation of speech in a public forum is subject to strict scrutiny. Thus, the regulation must be necessary to achieve a compelling government interest, and narrowly tailored to meet that interest. Preserving the light-hearted nature of a baseball game and preventing the possible loss of other advertising revenue is likely not a compelling interest. Answer choice B is incorrect because it is too broad. Not all public facilities qualify as public forums. Furthermore, a government official may regulate speech if the regulation is narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling government interest. Answer choice C is incorrect because time, place, and manner restrictions in a public forum are subject to strict scrutiny, and the actions in this case do not meet this standard. Answer choice D is incorrect because a city ordinance, whether validly enacted or not, may not give a city official the power to unconstitutionally restrict free speech.

A local religious community constructed a place of worship on land that they owned. Several years later, the community’s religion divided into two different sects, with one sect recognizing a new leader and a new interpretation of their religious tenets. The schism led to a dispute among the members of the local religious community as to which sect the local community should belong, with the majority in favor of joining the sect that recognized the new leader. The place of worship is now occupied and used by the members who voted to recognize the new leader of the religion. The minority, supported by the original leader of their religious sect, brought an ejection action in state court to gain possession of the place of worship.

In determining who is entitled to ownership of the place of worship, which of the following courses of action may the state court take?

The state court must follow the wishes of the majority of the local religious community in determining ownership of the local place of worship because title to the land is held by the local religious community.

The state court must legally enforce the established religious tenets of the original sect by awarding ownership to the original leader of the religion at the time that the place of worship was constructed.

The state court may determine which sect more closely adheres to the religious doctrines followed by the local religious community at the time that the place of worship was constructed, and award ownership to that sect.

The state court may apply religiously neutral principles of law to determine ownership of the place of worship.

Answer choice D is correct. The Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment protects religious belief from governmental inference. This means that the government may not deny benefits or impose burdens based on religious belief, and may not determine the reasonableness of a belief. However, when there is a property dispute between two religious groups, a court may apply religiously neutral principles of law to resolve the dispute. Answer choice A is incorrect because, while the court may ultimately award possession of the place of worship to the majority, the court is not required to award possession on the basis of majority rule by the members of the entity name in the title. Answer choices B and C are incorrect because, under the Free Exercise Clause, a court may not decide questions of religious doctrine when determining the ownership of property claimed by competing religious groups. With respect to answer choice B, while the court may ultimately award possession of the place of worship to the minority group of members of the local religious community, the court is not required to side with the tenets of the original sect. With respect to answer choice C, the court may not examine the content of these sects' religious beliefs and make a finding as to which sect adheres to the correct doctrines in order to determine which parties should own the place of worship.

A group of parents of public school students proposed a new school rule that would require teachers to begin each school day by standing for a minute of silent prayer before lessons began. The rule would not require the teachers or students to pray during the minute of silent prayer, but would require teachers to say, “Please stand for a minute of silent prayer.” Students who did not wish to participate could remain seated.

Would the school rule be constitutional?

No, because the rule violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

No, because the rule is not rationally related to any neutral law of general applicability.

Yes, because none of the students would be required to participate.

Yes, because parents of the students, and not the school board, wish to implement the rule.

Answer choice A is correct. The First Amendment provides that "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion." The Establishment Clause has been applied to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment. Generally, religious activities conducted in public schools have been held to violate the Establishment Clause. Specifically, designated periods of silence for "meditation or voluntary prayer" lacking any secular purpose have been held unconstitutional. Answer choice B is incorrect because it states the standard of review in Free Exercise Clause cases when a neutral law has an incidental impact on religious conduct. Answer choice C is incorrect because these kinds of moments of silence without a secular purpose are unconstitutional, even when they are not mandatory. Answer choice D is incorrect because it is irrelevant where the idea for the prohibited action originated; such actions are unconstitutional whether they originated with the school board, the parents, or the students themselves.

A state passed legislation banning the sale of assault weapons. Several talk-radio show hosts who opposed the new law rented space on five billboards in the state, all of which contended that the law is wrong and urged all who saw the billboards to take "any and all necessary steps" to get the law repealed. The billboards include a website address that contains the legislative steps for getting a state's law repealed, including gathering signatures on petitions and finding a legislator to sponsor new legislation repealing the law at issue. The billboards proved incredibly controversial. The state ordered the removal of the message from the billboards. The hosts brought suit alleging that the state's order for removal of the billboards' message constitutes an infringement upon their free speech.

Is the court most likely to rule that the billboards' message is protected or improper?

Improper, because the call to take "any and all necessary steps" can be construed as inciting violence.

Improper, because the state has a compelling interest in regulating subversive speech.

Protected, because the media has greater First Amendment rights than regular citizens.

Protected, because there is no compelling or substantial government interest in removing the advertisements.

Answer choice D is correct. Compelled removal of the billboards' message constitutes a content-based regulation of speech. The state may only regulate the content of speech if the regulation is necessary to achieve a compelling government interest and is narrowly tailored to meet that interest. Accordingly, there would have to be a compelling governmental interest in taking down the message; this is a test that is incredibly difficult to meet. Content-based regulation is generally only found constitutional when the speech to be regulated falls into one of the following categories: obscenity, subversive speech, fighting words, defamation, or commercial speech. Here, the message does not fall into any of these categories. Answer choice A is incorrect because to be regulated as "fighting words," the speech must be words that by their very nature are likely to incite an immediate breach of the peace. Taking "any and all measures" is insufficient to support a finding of fighting words. Answer choice B is incorrect because the content of the billboards is not subversive just because it is advocating for the repeal of a law. Subversive speech is speech that is directed to incite or produce imminent lawless action and that is likely to produce such action. Here, the billboards are directing citizens on how to repeal a law through the procedures set forth by the state. The billboards are not seeking to incite lawless action; they are informing those who see the billboards on how to take action under the state's laws. Answer choice C is incorrect because the media has no greater First Amendment protection than other citizens.

A state statute was recently enacted prohibiting any grocery store or market within one mile of a school from displaying any posters advertising items for sale. The goal of the statute was to discourage minors from illegally purchasing alcohol or soliciting others to purchase alcohol for them after seeing posters advertising that it was for sale. Before the regulation, many affected stores that did not sell alcohol also advertised in this manner, and the stores that did sell alcohol often advertised non-alcoholic items for sale with posters as well.

Is the statute constitutional?

No, because the statute was not narrowly tailored to serve the government’s goal.

No, because the statute was not the least restrictive available means to achieve the government’s goal.

Yes, because restrictions on commercial speech are not subject to protection by the First Amendment.

Yes, because the government’s interest is rationally related to the restriction.

Answer choice A is correct. Commercial speech is entitled to intermediate First Amendment protection when it concerns lawful activity and is neither false nor misleading. Restrictions on such speech are valid if the regulation is narrowly tailored to serve a substantial governmental interest. In this context, narrowly tailored does not mean the least restrictive means available; rather, there must be a “reasonable fit” between the government’s ends and the means chosen to accomplish those ends. Here, the ban on all posters is not a reasonable means to achieve the government’s goal of discouraging minors from illegally acquiring alcohol. Although the governmental interest here is substantial, the ban on all posters does not directly or efficiently advance this interest. Answer choice B is incorrect because, in the context of regulating commercial speech, “narrowly tailored” does not mean the least restrictive means available; the regulation must merely be reasonable and proportional to the goal of the regulation. Answer choice C is incorrect because commercial speech does receive a measure of First Amendment protection. Therefore, this answer choice misstates the law. Answer choice D is incorrect because it states the rational basis test, and commercial speech is subject to more protection than that.

Many citizens are concerned that large contributions by special interest groups and corporations to local politicians' campaigns and recent state constitutional referendums have undermined the state's democratic process. To reduce the danger of corruption and the imbalance in the presentation of arguments posed by excessive contributions, the State legislature passed a law limiting corporate and institutional donors' contributions to candidates and ballot measures to $500.

Is the state law constitutional?

No, because corporations and other groups enjoy First Amendment free speech rights.

No, because a law may not limit the contributions to ballot measures.

Yes, because the law is closely drawn to correspond with a sufficiently important state interest.

Yes, because the law is rationally related to the state's legitimate interest.

Answer choice B is correct. Statutes limiting campaign contributions are subject to intermediate scrutiny: they must be “closely drawn” to correspond with a sufficiently important interest. Laws may limit contributions to individual candidates, but not to ballot measures. This law is limiting contributions to ballot measures and is therefore unconstitutional. Answer choice A is incorrect because corporations and other groups do enjoy free speech protections, but states can limit contributions to individual candidates. Statutes limiting campaign contributions are subject to intermediate scrutiny. Reasonable limits on campaign contributions are constitutional because excessive contributions to candidates create a greater "danger of corruption and the appearance of corruption" than do legislatively imposed spending limitations. Answer choice C is incorrect because although it lists the correct standard of review (intermediate scrutiny), the state cannot limit contributions to ballot measures. Answer choice D is incorrect because it gives the wrong test (rational basis), and a state cannot limit contributions to ballot measures.

Last year, Congress enacted legislation providing for funding opportunities to eligible secular and religiously affiliated colleges and universities. The funding will be available through individual counties as each county’s funding limitations allow. The legislation does not require that each county apply standard guidelines nor does it provide any suggested guidelines other than a statement that “all counties should track funding and compile guidelines in the event of a federal audit.”

A county awards a large grant to a religiously affiliated college that employs a substantial number of residents. The grant contract, signed by representatives from both the county and the college, states as follows: “All grant monies must be used in compliance with county regulations. Further, the college must track the allocation of grant monies throughout the grant term.”

Is the county’s award of the grant constitutional?

No, because the county provided grant monies to a religiously affiliated college.

No, because it does not require that the aid be used only for nonreligious purposes.

Yes, because the college is required to track funding.

Yes, because the college may be the subject of a federal audit.

Answer choice B is correct. Governmental financial assistance to religious institutions is permitted if the aid is secular in nature, used only for secular purposes, and, when the aid is distributed among secular and religious institutions, the distribution criteria must be religiously neutral. Answer choice A is incorrect because the government can provide grants to religiously affiliated colleges, provided the aid is secular in nature, used only for secular purposes, and the distribution criteria must be religiously neutral. Answer choice C is incorrect because tracking funding is insufficient; the government must explicitly require that funds not be used for religious purposes. Answer choice D is incorrect because even if a federal review of the award process does occur, the application of the regulations might still be unconstitutional. There is no indication that the county requires that the aid be spent for nonreligious purposes only.

A state law prohibited all outdoor advertisement of cigars within 1,000 feet of a school. The legislative history for the statute demonstrates that the prohibition was intended to combat cigar use by minors, which legislators believed was a pressing problem. Federal law does not prohibit state regulation of cigars. Moreover, in order to receive federal funding for state substance abuse programs, a state must prohibit the sale of tobacco products to minors.

Cigar manufacturers, distributors and retailers have challenged the state law as unconstitutional. They note that the state prohibition on outdoor advertisement encompasses ads that are neither untruthful nor misleading. In addition, they point out that the law is not narrowly tailored to protect students while also permitting legal advertisement of cigars to adults because in certain cities, the law prevents outdoor advertising of cigars in almost all areas of the city.

Is the court likely to strike down the law?

No, because the state’s interest in the health of minors is compelling and dovetails with the federal purpose of preventing minors from smoking.

No, because the law directly advances the state’s compelling interest.

Yes, because the law is not narrowly tailored to achieve its purpose.

Yes, because the law prohibits truthful speech.

Answer choice C is correct. Restrictions on lawful commercial speech that is neither false nor misleading, such as advertising, are subject to intermediate scrutiny and are reviewed under a three-part test: (i) the asserted government interest must be substantial; (ii) the regulation must directly advance the asserted interest; and (iii) the regulation must be narrowly tailored to serve that interest. Although the state's concern for the health of minors constitutes a compelling interest, the law is not narrowly tailored to serve that interest. Thus, the state law constitutes an unconstitutional restriction on commercial speech. Answer choice A is incorrect because the regulation is an impermissible restriction on commercial speech because it is not narrowly tailored. Answer choice B is incorrect because, even though the law directly advances the state's substantial purpose, it is not narrowly tailored to serve that purpose. Answer choice D is incorrect because a state may ban truthful commercial speech if there is a substantial government interest and the regulation directly advances that interest and is narrowly tailored to serve that interest.

A state enacted a law that prohibited the sale of violent video games to minors and imposed a fine for each violation. The legislative history demonstrated a concern that there was a correlation between playing such games and subsequent violent behavior. A maker of video games brought suit contending that this law violated its First Amendment right of free speech.

Is this law unconstitutional?

Yes, because the costs of such a restriction on speech outweigh its benefits.

Yes, because the state law is a content-based restriction.

No, because video games do not qualify for First Amendment protection.

No, because states have the power to protect children from harm.

Answer choice B is correct. The state law prohibited a particular type of speech (i.e., violent video games), and thus contained a content-based restriction subject to strict scrutiny. Such regulations must be necessary to achieve a compelling government interest and narrowly tailored to meet that interest. A mere correlation between violent video games and violent behavior does not constitute a compelling interest to regulate such games. Accordingly, the law is unconstitutional. Answer choice A is incorrect because a balancing test is not the correct test to determine the constitutionality of content-based regulations. Rather, content-based regulations are subject to the strict scrutiny test. Answer choice C is incorrect because video games communicate ideas, and are thus a form of speech protected by the First Amendment. Answer choice D is incorrect because, although a state possesses the power to protect children from harm, a state may not shield children from speech absent a recognized limitation on the speech, such as obscenity.

In response to several violent and fatal confrontations, Congress enacted a law prohibiting all public speeches related to gun control inside government offices. Shortly thereafter, a protestor was arrested after displaying a large placard in a government office that said “GUNS ARE NOT THE PROBLEM; GOVERNMENT IS.” At trial, the protestor challenged the law as a violation of his free speech rights. The government replied by stating that the law served the legitimate government interest of preventing violence in government offices.

Is the protestor likely to prevail in his challenge?

No, because the statute was viewpoint-neutral and reasonably related to a legitimate government interest.

No, because First Amendment restrictions apply only to public forums.

Yes, because the statute regulated speech that was not content-neutral and was not narrowly tailored to serve a significant government purpose.

Yes, because government offices are public forums.

Answer choice A is correct. A “public forum” may be traditional—those that are historically associated with expression, such as sidewalks, streets, and parks—or designated—those that the government has opened for public use, such as civic auditoriums. In such public forums, the government may impose reasonable restrictions on the time, place, or manner of protected speech, provided the restrictions are content-neutral, narrowly tailored to serve a significant government interest, and leave open ample alternative channels for communication. A nonpublic forum is essentially any public property that is not a traditional or designated public forum, such as government offices, schools, jails, and military bases. The government may regulate speech-related activities in nonpublic forums as long as the regulation is (i) viewpoint-neutral and (ii) reasonably related to a legitimate governmental interest. In this case, the regulation concerns a nonpublic forum, the law is viewpoint-neutral in that it prohibits all gun-control speech, and it is reasonably related to the legitimate interest of preventing violence inside government offices. Therefore, the protestor’s constitutional challenge will fail. Answer choice B is incorrect because the First Amendment applies in a nonpublic forum, and requires that a regulation be viewpoint neutral and reasonably related to a government interest. Answer choice C is incorrect because it describes the strict scrutiny standard for regulating time, place, and manner of speech in a public forum. Because government offices are nonpublic forums, the standard does not apply. Answer choice D is incorrect because government offices are not public forums.

A public middle school principal requested the services of a clergy member in the school’s graduation ceremony. The principal asked the clergy member to deliver a prayer at the beginning of the ceremony. A parent of one of the middle school children learned that the prayer would take place at the ceremony and immediately filed an injunction, claiming the prayer would be unconstitutional.

Is the prayer constitutional?

Yes, if the clergy member’s prayer at the ceremony is nonsectarian.

Yes, if the graduation participants are not required to participate in the prayer.

No, because it violates the Establishment Clause of the Constitution.

No, because the principal requested the service of the clergy member.

Answer choice C is correct. Generally, religious activities conducted in public schools violate the Establishment Clause. A nondenominational prayer led by a cleric at public school graduation ceremonies has been held invalid as clearly promoting religion. Here, the clergy member’s delivery of a prayer at the public middle school’s graduation ceremony would violate the Establishment Clause, and is thus unconstitutional. [Editor's Note: Kennedy v. Bremerton is not applicable to this question, as that case involved a coach observing a moment of silent prayer on his own after a football game; this can be distinguished from this factual scenario, in which a prayer is integrated into a school event.] Answer choice A is incorrect because even a nonsectarian prayer would be an impermissible promotion of religion. Answer choice B is incorrect. The delivery of the prayer is sufficient to constitute a violation of the Establishment Clause, regardless of whether the graduation participants are required to participate in the prayer or not. Answer choice D is incorrect because the prayer itself would violate the Establishment Clause even if the prayer request was initiated by the students, rather than the principal.

Relying on its Commerce Clause power, Congress enacted a statute that criminalized the knowing possession of child pornography. Congress adduced facts that possession of such displays substantially affected interstate commerce. The statute includes within the definition of child pornography explicit visual displays of a minor child that would not be considered obscene if they involved adults.

Is the statute constitutional?

No, because the statute criminalizes possession of non-obscene material.

No, because the statute exceeds congressional power under the Commerce Clause by regulating the possession of material that has not entered into the stream of commerce.

Yes, because the statute does not violate the First Amendment Free Speech Clause.

Yes, because there is no constitutional right to possess pornography.

Answer choice C is correct. The First Amendment Free Speech Clause does not protect child pornography. Because of the government's compelling interest in protecting minor children from exploitation, the sale, distribution, and even private possession of child pornography may be prohibited, even if the material would not be obscene if it involved adults. Answer choice A is incorrect because Congress may criminalize the possession of child pornography even though the pornographic material would not be obscene if it involved adults. Answer choice B is incorrect because Congress has broad power under the Commerce Clause to regulate interstate commerce. This power extends to privately produced and consumed items when those items have a substantial impact on interstate commerce, provided that Congress has adduced facts that establish this impact (as seen here). Answer choice D is incorrect because there is a fundamental right to possess pornography, including obscene materials, in the privacy of one's home, provided the pornography does not constitute child pornography.

A public university adopted the following policy: In order to be recognized as a student organization with rights to school facilities and funds, an organization must permit any student to be a member regardless of the student’s status or beliefs. One student organization was a local chapter of a national organization that restricted membership in local chapters to members of a particular religious sect and denied membership to homosexual individuals.

May the university apply its policy to the student religious group?

No, because the policy violates the First Amendment Free Exercise Clause.

No, because the policy violates the First Amendment Freedom of Association Clause.

Yes, because a public university is free to allocate its funds among student groups in any rational manner it sees fit.

Yes, because a public university is a limited public forum and the policy is viewpoint neutral.

Answer choice D is correct. A public school, as a limited public forum, may allocate access to school facilities and funds among student groups when the allocation is done in a manner that is viewpoint neutral. In this case, the university’s policy was viewpoint neutral, and thus may be applied to the religious group. Answer choice A is incorrect because the school’s policy does not deny benefits to the group on the basis of its beliefs, but instead merely restricts access to school facilities and funds based on neutral criteria. A state actor may not deny benefits or impose burdens based on religious belief. In this case, the school has set forth a neutral policy that is not targeted at any group’s beliefs. Answer choice B is incorrect because the policy does not violate the First Amendment Freedom of Association Clause, which generally protects the right to form or participate in any group. Rather, the policy merely denies public funding and facilities to the group if the group chooses to discriminate in the selection of its members. Answer choice C is incorrect because, while a public school may allocate funds among student groups and such allocation must be rational, a public school is not permitted to do so in a manner that is not viewpoint neutral.

A state airport commission adopted a regulation prohibiting the solicitation of money inside airport terminals, but permitted the solicitation of money on the pathways outside the terminals where travelers were accessible. The commission adopted the regulation due to the disrupting effect solicitation had on travelers attempting to reach their gates, causing delays and congestion in the terminals. Fundraisers from an organization devoted to raising money to help cure cancer attempted to solicit donations in the airport terminal, and were detained for violating the regulation. The organization has challenged the constitutionality of the regulation.

Is the regulation constitutional?

No, because a ban on all solicitation is not narrowly tailored to serve a significant government interest.

No, because the regulation preventing solicitation in airport terminals is not content neutral.

Yes, because the ban on solicitation is reasonably related to a legitimate government interest.

Yes, because the regulation leaves open ample alternative channels for communication on the sidewalks outside the airport terminals.

Answer choice C is correct. Applicable to the states via the Fourteenth Amendment, the First Amendment generally prohibits the government's ability to restrict speech. However, the government may regulate speech-related activities in nonpublic forums as long as the regulation is (i) viewpoint-neutral and (ii) reasonably related to a legitimate governmental interest. An airport terminal is considered a nonpublic forum. Here, the ban on solicitation in the airport terminals is viewpoint-neutral because it prohibits all types of solicitation; it does not target solicitation based on the specific cause. The ban is also reasonably related to the legitimate governmental interest of avoiding a disruptive effect for travelers inside an airport terminal. Therefore, the regulation is constitutional. Answer choice A is incorrect because it applies the rule applicable to content-based restrictions in a public forum, not a nonpublic forum such as an airport terminal. Answer choice B is incorrect. A regulation in a nonpublic forum need not be content-neutral, but it must be viewpoint-neutral. In other words, the government may prohibit speech on certain issues altogether, but it may not allow only one side of an issue to be presented. Here, the ban on solicitation in the airport terminals need not be content-neutral to be upheld. Answer choice D is incorrect because this is only a requirement to find that a regulation on speech in a public forum is valid. Regulation in nonpublic forums, such as an airport terminal, is not required to leave open ample alternative channels for communication.