WPCq vqHl3X\@ş¦JNV3W$i)T87JP5PzEB{u|JW:ddY4zF/PIt{{H-::Hx:dIY:_> ;D]sMIZA_ib+Zn7_A^@aSVKn%2=2ܼcTPs´Nb֠γؼGPŮ^Ƕ yE*|`}.?tN<ӪmAW,d8Is<:dFG {?Hl*uqz!4N)#jnީ@oě'e3~Jpr>1زB$ѽ R0k\^cw7v#tUF5 %{ 0G ^ U8& U&0^ UB U> ^  b N" w$ 4( < 0K > m@ 0UW 0 0 0{ 0^ 0> 0 0 0 0C 0 0 0 0_ 0- 0 0 0 0@E 0 0Y 0* 0 0 0 0P 0! 00! 0<! 0;" 0>" 0v7# 0`# 0` $ 0`m$ 0`$ 0`-% 08% 0% 02& 0& 0:' 0Y' 0_X( 0 ( 0j) 0++ B*, D/, D+- 03- D/. 0. 06/ 0E/ 0:0 0^,1 0<1 1e1U6+2U>a2U*2 1u2 72>37p3 0D99mk=BBUN}UUZ 0NL_E__@*ejeimqsv,U~J\3G ӓ2LLLLLL BTHP LaserJet 5/5M - Standard,,,,0<  9Z+.Courier New RegularX(K$XXXXL:\JUDGES\Boudin\TEMPLATE\OPINIONS\ALDRICH.WPT<4 9Z+ Courier New <\( 9Z+Courier <6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpi\( 9Z+&Courier Regularc}1s - - L=1?,}backup3|x(G2$ K!X@XXX    =@Xdd=  X@XhX@  0  `U*+ (_2623  ..*G+M (_25   /%` ` hp x /23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *D+M (_24   ," hp x ,23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *A+M (_23  ` ) hp x )23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *>+M (_22   &hhp x &23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *;+M (_21   #p x #23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *8+M (_20  h  p x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *5+M (_19   pp x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *2+M (_18    x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  * (_1723  Ԁ*GM (_16   /%` ` hp x /23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *DM (_15   ," hp x ,23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *AM (_14  ` ) hp x )23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *>M (_13   &hhp x &23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *;M (_12   #p x #23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *8M (_11  h  p x 23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *5M (_10   pp x 23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  (2M &_9    x 23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  ( &_823  (GM &_7   /%` ` hp x /23   5+ ` hp x 5  (DM &_6   ," hp x ,23   5+ ` hp x 5  (AM &_5  ` ) hp x )23   5+ ` hp x 5  (>M &_4   &hhp x &23   5+ ` hp x 5  (;M &_3   #p x #23   5+ ` hp x 5  (8M &_2  h  p x 23   5+ ` hp x 5  (5M &_1   pp x 23   5+ ` hp x 5  &2M $_    x 23   5+ ` hp x 5  0.Normal<:Definition T<AA:Definition L , 5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 586Definition(''&H1      (&H2  (&H3  (&H4 XXX (&H5  (&H6  20Address8MM6Blockquote , , 5+ ` hp x 5   5+ ` hp x 5,*CITE,dl*CODEKN<6X9`(Courier NewKSO\  `&Times New RomanS42Emphasis64Hyperlink    <:FollowedHype    4go2Keyboard KN<6X9`(Courier NewKSO\  `&Times New RomanS <:Preformatted/%  ,Kk %#/KN<6X9`(Courier NewKSO\  `&Times New RomanS/%  ,Kk %#/<:zBottom of 7C(X7  ?P%2A`Arial?  SO\  `&Times New RomanS7D(X7&  d dB)1dxd'dxd<:zTop of For7F(X7  ?P%2A`Arial?  SO\  `&Times New RomanS7D(X7B)2dxd0KS.SampleKN<6X9`(Courier NewKSO\  `&Times New RomanS0.Strong 8dl6TypewriterKN<6X9`(Courier NewKSO\  `&Times New RomanS42Variable: 8HTML MarkupB      2 0CommentB   !"# 35;AGMSY_11.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.<6X9`(Courier New\  `&Times New Roman%2A`Arial3#37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)Qi) - $XCXXX  =CXdd=  XCXhXC  5    _=CXXdXd=XCXXXCChangetheClimateintroducedevidencethattheMBTArefused  todisplayanadfromanorganizationcalledthe_ Surfrider_   Foundation,agroupwhosegoalistoencourageresponsibledisposal \ ofcigarettebutts,onthebasisoftheMBTA'sbanon 2 advertisementsfortobaccoproductsbecauseitincludedapicture X ofpeoplesmoking.Theadcontainedthreepicturesofonecouple, . duringwhichtheyaresmoking,talking,andthendisposingoftheir   cigarettes.Theadbegins:"We'renotoneofthoseorganizations   whobelieveyoushouldn'tsmoke!Whatwecareaboutishowyou `  disposeofyourcigarette."Theadthenhasinformationaboutthe 6   harmfuleffectsofcigarettesonbeaches,andhastipsfor  \  responsibledisposalofcigarettebutts.HowevertheMBTAallowed  2  anadfortheairlineAlItalia,whichcontainedapictureofa   womanonamotorcyclewithacigaretteinonehand,withthe   caption:"Let'screateabuzz."#XCXXXC#(#$  0   v $XCXXX  =CXdd=  XCXhXC  6    _=CXXdXd=XCXXXCItsrestrictionswereonly1)aninstructiontoits  contractortoconcentrateonadsotherthanalcoholandtobacco;2)  thatitreservedtoitselfafinalvetowithoutguidelinesasto \ whenitwouldexercisethatveto;and3)itrestrictedthecontract 2 managerfromaccepting"libelous,slanderous,orobscene" X advertisements(whichwasnotthebasisfortherejectionof . plaintiff'sadvertisement).Id.at25051.#XCXXXC# c $XCXXX  =CXdd=  XCXhXC  13    _=CXXdXd=XCXXXCItistrue,asthepartiesstipulated,thattheword  "denigration"intheMBTA'sfirstsetofguidelines,underwhich  E Ridley'ssecondadvertisementwasinitiallyrejected,means  virtuallythesamethingasthewords"demean[]ordisparage[]"in  theMBTA'ssecondsetofguidelines,underwhichRidley'ssecond \ advertisementwaseventuallyaccepted. Butthesecondsetof 2 guidelinesalsoadoptedanewpolicydeterminingthatawebsite X listedonanadvertisementshouldnotbeconsideredunlessthe . advertisementitselfhasanunclearmessage.Thisnewpolicywas   directlyapplicabletoRidley'ssecondadvertisement,which   referencedawebsitecontainingadditionalandpotentially `  "demeaning"content(thesamekindoflistof"false"religions 6   statedinthethirdadvertisement).#XCXXXC#     $XCXXX  =CXdd=  XCXhXC  11    =CXXdXd=_XCXXXCTheMBTA'stwoearlierpolicies,intheirsinglingoutof  certainspecificgroups,could,_ dubitante_ ,bethoughttobelike  thehatespeechlawatissuein_ R.A.V._ ,whichbannedtheplacingof \ certainsymbolsorobjectsonpropertywhen"oneknowsorhas 2 reasonablegroundstoknow[thatsuchplacement]arousesanger, X alarmorresentmentinothersonthebasisofrace,color,creed, . religionorgender."_ R.A.V._ ,505U.S.at380.Indicta,theCourt   noted:   ` ` Initspracticaloperation...theordinance `  goesevenbeyondmerecontentdiscrimination 6   toactualviewpointdiscrimination.Displays  \  containingsomewordsodiousracialepithets,  2   forexamplewouldbeprohibitedtoproponents  ofallviews.But"fightingwords"thatdo  notthemselvesinvokerace,color,creed, \ religion,orgenderaspersionsupona 2 person'smother,forexamplewouldseemingly X beusableadlibitumintheplacardsofthose . arguinginfavorofracial,color,etc.,   toleranceandequality,butcouldnotbeused   bythosespeakers'opponents.Onecouldhold `  upasignsaying...thatall"antiCatholic 6   bigots"aremisbegotten;butnotthatall  \  "papists"are,forthatwouldinsultand  2  provokeviolence"onthebasisofreligion."   St.Paulhasnosuchauthoritytolicenseone   sideofadebatetofightfreestyle,while d  requiringtheothertofollowMarquisof :  Queensberryrules. `  ` ` "Id.at39192. 6   Theabilitytousecertainlinguistictoolsinthecourseof   argument,inotherwords,cannotincertainsettingsbestatutorily  monopolizedbyonlyonesideofadebate,eveniftheotherside h hadother,possiblylesseffective,waystogetitsmessageout. > UndertheMBTA'sfirstandsecondguidelines,asinthestatutein d _R.A.V._,thissortoftiltedplayingfieldwouldpotentiallyhave : beenpossible.Thecriminalstatuteatissuein_R.A.V._andthe  regulationofadvertisingbythegovernmentasacommercial  enterpriseatissuearequitedifferentcontexts,andthus_R.A.V._ l mayhavenoapplicabilityhere. B   Further,thetypeofproblemidentifiedin_R.A.V._isnota h problemforanadvertiserinGoodNews'sposition.GoodNewsisa > religion;itsrejectedadvertisementwasfairlyunderstoodasan  attempttodemeanotherreligions.AnyattempttodemeanGoodNews  oritsstanceonthefalsityofotherreligionswoulddoubtlessly p  bedenigration"onthebasisof...religion"andthuswouldbe F ! prohibitedevenbytheinitialtwosetsofregulations.The_R.A.V._ !l" problemonlyexistswheretheindividualorgroupthatisprevented !B# fromspeakingisnotitselfanobjectofprotectionunderthe "$ classificationsgiveninastatuteorregulation(forexample, #% bigotswerenotaprotectedgroupunderthestatutein_R.A.V._). t$&   Ridleyalsocannotchallengetheseearlierregulationson J% ' theirface,aspartofan_overbreadth_Ԁchallenge.Suchachallenge  &p!( wasnotmadetous,anditiswaived.(A Z6Times New Roman Regular  $XCXXX  =CXdd=  XCXhXC  7    _=CXXdXd=XCXXXCInUnitedFood&CommercialWorkersUnion,Local1099v.  SouthwestOhioReg'lTransitAuth.,163F.3d341(6thCir.1998),  thetransitsystemrejectedaunion'sproposedwraparoundbus \ advertisementbecause,inlargepart,itwastoocontroversial. 2 Id.at347.SORTAacceptedpublicservice,publicissue, X political,andcommercialadvertisements,subjecttoapolicy . excludingadvertisingonpoliticalissuescontroversialenoughthat   theymightadverselyaffectridership.Id.at359.Thecourtgave   alternativeholdingsthatifnopublicforumwascreated,the `  restrictionwasunreasonable,butthatSORTAhadcreateda 6   designatedpublicforumbyacceptingvirtuallyunlimited  \  advertising.Id.at363. v $XCXXX  =CXdd=  XCXhXC  3    _=CXXdXd=XCXXXCContrarytoRidley'sassumption,designationofthetypeof  forumdoesnotalwaysdictatethestandardofreview.Forexample,  strictscrutinymaynotalwaysapplytoapublicforum.SeeDenver \ AreaEduc.Telecomm.Consortiumv.FCC,518U.S.727,74142(1996) 2 ("[T]heFirstAmendmentembodiesanoverarchingcommitmentto X protectspeechfromgovernmentregulationthroughclosejudicial . scrutiny,therebyenforcingtheConstitution'sconstraints,but   withoutimposingjudicialformulassorigidthattheybecomea   straitjacketthatdisablesthegovernmentfromrespondingto `  seriousproblems.").#XCXXXC#(O$  $XCXXX  =CXdd=  XCXhXC  1    _=CXXdXd=XCXXXCIndeed,themajority'sinsistenceondelvingintoforum  analysisisperplexing,givenitsrecognitionthat"[p]ublicforum  analysisitselfhasbeencriticizedasunhelpfulinmanycontexts, \ andparticularlythisonewherethegovernmentisoperatinga 2 commercialenterpriseearningincomefromadvertising." Maj.op. X at1516(citingTribe,supra,at224,at922("[W]hetherornot . agivenplaceisdeemeda'publicforum'isordinarilyless   significantthanthenatureofthespeechrestriction--despitethe   Court'srhetoric.");FrederickSchauer,Principles,Institutions, `  andtheFirstAmendment,112Harv.L.Rev.84,97(1998)("Ofall 6   ofthepathsdownwhichtheCourtmightgoindealingwiththe  \  governmententerprisecases,thesocalled'forumdoctrine'appears  2  leastsatisfactory.")).#XCXXXC#http://www.changetheclimate.org  $XCXXX  =CXdd=  XCXhXC  12    _=CXXdXd=XCXXXCThisguidelineatissuehereissomewhatliketheregulation  atissueinCogswellv.CityofSeattle,347F.3d809(9thCir.  2003).InCogswell,theplaintiffchallengedaregulationthat \ allowedeachcandidatetopromoteherselfinacityprinted 2 "voters'pamphlet,"butforbadeacandidatefromdiscussingher X opponentsinthepamphlet.Thecourtupheldthisregulationasa . contentrestrictionthatdidnotleadtoviewpointdiscrimination:   sucha"groundrule"thatis"equallyapplicabletoallcandidates"   didnotcreateatiltedplayingfieldforspeech.Id.at816. `  ACXdXXdA  $XCXXX  =CXdd=  XCXhXC  1    _=CXXdXd=XCXXXCThewebsiteread,inpart,  0  #(#(#  #  Thesearesomeofthefalsereligion[sic]Satansetup:    CATHOLICS    BAPTISTS \   _PENTECOSTALS_Ԁ 2   JEHOVAHWITNESSES X   MUSLIMS .   SOCALLEDJEWISH   $XCXXX  =CXdd=  XCXhXC  8    _XCXXXC=CXXdXd=Forcomparisonpurposes,itisimportanttobeclearthatthe  MBTAguidelinesalsoprecludeadvertisementscontainingspeech  about"_ candidate[s_ ]forpublicoffice"orabout"specificballot \ _ question[s_ ],initiative_ petition[s_ ],or_ referend[a_ ]."TheMBTAhas 2 rightlynotreliedonthisguidelineinourcase,becauseChange X  theClimate'sadvertisementsdonotfallintothesetwonarrow  categories.#XCXXXC#  $XCXXX  =CXdd=  XCXhXC  14    _XCXXXC=CXXdXd=ThechangesinpositionbytheMBTAinthiscasedonotshow  thatthestandardistoovague.WedeclinetousetheMBTA'spast  changesinitsguidelinesagainstit;whatisimportantisthatthe \ MBTA'srulesarenowreasonablyclear. 2 ACXdXXdA  $XCXXX  =CXdd=  XCXhXC  2    _=CXXdXd=XCXXXCInthisway,Ridley'sadvertisementwouldbeanalogoustoa  publicserviceannouncementstating:"Kidswhosmokethinkthey  lookcool,butreallyitmakesthemlookstupid."Itwouldbe \  difficulttoimaginetheMBTArejectingsuchanadvertisementon  thebasisthatitridiculesordemeansadolescentsmokers.#XCXXXC#  $XCXXX  =CXdd=  XCXhXC  3    _=CXXdXd=XCXXXCThemajority'ssuggestion,Maj.op.at5962,thatthe  vaguenessinquiryisnotimportantinthiscasebecauseitdoesnot  involvealicensingschemeinatraditionalpublicforumis \ unconvincing.Evenifthemajorityiscorrectthatthisisnota 2 traditionalpublicforuminthelegalsense,theMBTAtransit X systemservesasitsfunctionalequivalentintoday'ssociety.2.5 .  millionpeopleuseitsfacilitiesonadailybasis,anditcontains  approximately40,000advertisingspaces.Ineffect,theMBTAisin  apositiontocontrolthedisseminationofinformationtoalarge \ segmentofthepublicwhich,inapracticalsense,isobligedtobe 2 exposedtowhateveradvertisingtheMBTAchoosestopermitinits X facilities.Consequently,the"dangerofexcessivediscretion.. . ._ lead[ing_ ]toviewpointdiscriminatorydecisions,"id.at60,is   quiteserious.Further,whilethemajorityindicatesthatconcern   aboutvaguenessisatitszenithinlicensingschemesfor `  traditionalpublicfora,Iamawareofnoprecedentthatwould 6   permitvaguenessinregulationsoutsideofthiscontext,especially  \  whenthepotentialramificationsofunconstitutionalimplementation  2  haveasimilarpracticaleffect.#XCXXXC# " $XCXXX  =CXdd=  XCXhXC  4    _=CXXdXd=XCXXXCThephrase"limitedpublicforum"hasbeenusedindifferent  ways.Weusedthephrase"limitedpublicforum"asasynonymfor  "designatedpublicforum"inBernerv.Delahanty,129F.3d20,26 \ (1stCir.1997),andagaininNewEnglandReg'lCouncilof 2 Carpentersv.Kinton,284F.3d9,20(1stCir.2002).Ontheother X hand,weusedthephrase"limitedpublicforum"asasynonymfor . "nonpublicforum"inFundforCmty.Progressv.Kane,943F.3d137,   138(1stCir.1991).Thisconfusionisechoedelsewhere.See,   e.g.,NewYorkMagazinev.Metro.TransitAuth.,136F.3d123,128 `  &n.2(2dCir.1998).Weadopttheusageequatinglimitedpublic 6   forumwithnonpublicforumanddonotdiscusstheissuefurther.#XCXXXC# v $XCXXX  =CXdd=  XCXhXC  2    _=CXXdXd=XCXXXCThoseguidelinesweretheresultoftheworkofanadvisory  boardconstitutedbytheMBTAafterthedistrictcourtissuedits  interlocutoryorderinChangetheClimatev.MBTA,214F.Supp.2d \ 135(D.Mass.2002).#XCXXXC#  $XCXXX  =CXdd=  XCXhXC  10    _=CXXdXd=XCXXXCForexample,theWhiteHousereportedthatthefiscalyear  2003budgetincluded$149millionforaNationalYouthAntiDrug  Mediacampaign,meanttopreventdrugusebyteens.SeeNational \ DrugControlStrategy:FY2005BudgetSummary90(March2004), 2 availableat4j \O  5  http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/6\O  7  X publications/policy/budgetsum04/budgetsum05.pdf.#XCXXXC#  $XCXXX  =CXdd=  XCXhXC  9    _=CXXdXd=XCXXXCThesecommentsweremadebyLucyShorter,thenDirectorof  MarketingfortheMBTAandtheliaisonbetweentheMBTAandits  advertisingcontractor.#XCXXXC#http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/  $XCXXX  =CXdd=  XCXhXC  4    _XCXXXC=CXXdXd=Therejectedadvertisementstatedthat"[_t]here_Ԁareno  scripturesintheBiblethatteachthatGodsetuptheCatholic  religion,theBaptistreligion,thePentecostalreligion,the \ Jehovah'sWitnessreligionortheMuslimreligion.Thesereligions 2 arefalse."#XCXXXC#  $XCXXX  =CXdd=  XCXhXC  5    _=CXXdXd=XCXXXCThemajorityinsiststhatMBTAoughtnotbeboundtopermit  expressionsanalogoustothoseitmistakenlypermittedinthepast.  Thismightbesoinanisolatedcase.However,onecannotignore \ theMBTA'shaphazardandunpredictablepatternofenforcementwith 2 regardnotonlytoRidley'sthreeads,butalsotoearlierads, X suchasthoseatissueinAIDSAction,42F.3dat1.Thissuggests . thatitwasnomereoversightormisunderstandingthatledtothe   acceptanceofRidley'ssecondadvertisement.Wemustnotallowthe   MBTAtochangeitsstandardsoritsenforcementthereofeverytime `  itsapplicationoftheguidelinesischallenged.#XCXXXC# = $XCXXX  =CXdd=  XCXhXC  6    _=CXXdXd=XCXXXCClaimsofauniqueholycharterandexclusivesalvationare  commonplaceinwesternreligion.Theexamplesbelowarenot  dissimilarfromthepositionespousedbyRidleyinherthird \ advertisement: 2   TheRomanCatholicChurch:"ThisisthesoleChurchof . Christ,whichintheCreedweprofesstobeone,holy,catholicand   apostolic."CatechismoftheCatholicChurch#811."Thereisbut   oneholyCatholicandapostolicchurch,outsideofwhichthereis `  nosalvation...itisaltogethernecessaryforsalvationfor 6   everycreaturetobesubjecttotheRomanPontiff."1Vatican  \  CouncilII36465(Austin_ Flannery_ ,O.P.,ed.).  2    Jehovah'sWitnesses:"Considertoo,thefactthatJehovah's   organizationalone,inalltheearth,isdirectedbyGod'sholy d  spiritoractiveforce."TheWatchtower,July1,1973,at402. :    ChurchofJesusChristofLatterdaySaints(Mormon):"This 6 isnotjustanotherChurch.Thisisnotjustonefamilyof   Christianchurches.ThisistheChurchandthekingdomofGod,the  onlytrueChurchuponthefaceoftheearth,accordingtothe h Lord'sownwords."EzraTaftBenson,TheTeachingofEzraTaft > Benson1645(1988)."Beholdtherearesavetwochurchesonly;the d  oneistheChurchoftheLambofGodandtheotheristhechurches  ofthedevil;whereforewhoso_ belongeth_ Ԁnottothechurchofthe  lambofgod_ belongeth_ Ԁtothatgreatchurch;whichisthemotherof \ abominations;andsheisthewhoreofalltheearth".Bookof 2 Mormon,1_ Nephi_ Ԁ14:10. X   Islam:"IfanyonedesiresareligionotherthanIslam   (submissiontoAllah)neverwillItbeacceptedofHim."_ Qur'aan_ ,   _ Soorah_ Ԁ_ Aal'imraan_ Ԁ3:85. `  Indeed,theMBTAguidelinewouldprohibitevenexpressionofthe  \  FirstCommandment,whichadmonishesbelievers:"Thoushalthaveno  2  othergodsbeforeme."Exodus20:3.Thismandatewouldhaveto   berejectedasoffensivetonon_ Judeo_ ԄChristiansbecauseitis   "hostile"toand"disparages"believersindeitiesotherthanthe d  _ Judeo_ ԄChristiangod.#XCXXXC# ( $XCXXX  =CXdd=  XCXhXC  7    _=CXXdXd=XCXXXCIagainnotethatRidleyhasneverarguedforumanalysis.  SuchdiscussionisirrelevanttoRidley'sviewpointandvagueness  arguments,withwhichIfullyagree.#XCXXXC#  d K!XCXXX  _   8CXXdd8 *,X` XX*WOa  YXaXXXCYXYXa      = C XXdd=UnitedStatesCourtofAppeals#YXaXY#YXYXa  FortheFirstCircuit #Y##XCX#  V `     X    `    Au]) ` dE< ` A    `     X   No.031970 K  No.032285 ! q @*  @@,,"LISCHENRIDLEY,    individuallyandonbehalfofmembersofthe   congregationoftheChurchwiththeGoodNews;and y  CHANGETHECLIMATE,INC., O  @Plaintiffs,Appellants, K  @tt)v.   `     X    `    @MASSACHUSETTSBAYTRANSPORTATIONAUTHORITY;and )y   MICHAELH.MULHERN,inhisofficialcapacity, O @@Defendants,Appellees.   @`  @  @  @X  @  @`  @ Au]) ` dE<V` A W  @  @`  @  @  @h  @  @  @p  @ @@ppAPPEALSFROMTHEUNITEDSTATESDISTRICTCOURT < FORTHEDISTRICTOFMASSACHUSETTS b  [Hon.RobertE.Keeton,SeniorU.S.DistrictJudge]  Au]) ` dE<w` A x  @@'Before ] " @@ Torruella,Lynch,andLipez,CircuitJudges.  "Y$ Au]) ` dE<#` A #&    ` HarveyA.Schwarz,withwhomLaurieA.Frankl,Rodgers, $( Powers&Schwartz,SarahWunsch,andACLUFdn.ofMassachusetts p% ) wereonbrief,forappellants. F&!*  ` RudolphF.Pierce,withwhomJamesA.Aliosi,Jr.,Peter 'l"+ N.Kochansky,andGoulston&Storrswereonbrief,forappellees. 'B#,  #XCXXXCO#XCXXXC@@<< 򀀀 t*%/ November29,2004  ,p'1 @@<< 򀀀#XCXXXC #XCXXXC ,F(2  -)3L Ї @` +  #XCXXXC #  ` LYNCH,CircuitJudge .Thesetwoappeals,consolidatedat  therequestofallparties,raiseFirstAmendmentchallengestothe x rejectionofproposedadvertisingsubmittedtoaBostonareapublic $t transitsystem,theMassachusettsBayTransportationAuthority   ("MBTA").  |   ` InChangetheClimate,Inc.v.MBTA,No.032285,the ( x  MBTArejectedthreeadvertisementsdesignedtoraisequestions $  aboutmarijuanalawsonthestatedgroundthattheadswould   promoteillegaluseofmarijuanaamongchildren.Theothercase, ,|  Ridleyv.MBTA,No.031970,involvestherejectionofone ( advertisementfromareligiousgrouponthegroundsthatthead  violatedtheMBTA'sguidelinesprohibitingadvertisementswhich 0 demeanordisparageanindividualorgroupofindividuals.Several , FirstAmendmentdoctrinesareatissue.   ` ChangetheClimatebroughtsuitinfederalcourtonMay 4 18,2000.TheleadargumentisthattheMBTAadvertisingspaceis 0 adesignatedpublicforumandsotherejectionofthe   advertisementsisunconstitutional.ChangetheClimatestrongly 8!" urgesthecourttodecidetheforumissue,arguing: "4$ ` ` Determiningthenatureofthe"forum"atissue $& isamandatoryfirststepindecidingaFirst f% ' Amendmentcasesuchasthepresentonebecause <&!( "[t]heextenttowhichthegovernmentcan 'b") controlaccessdependsonthenatureofthe '8#* relevantforum."Corneliusv.NAACPLegal ($+ DefenseandEduc.Fund,473U.S.788,800 )$, (1985).Boththeprotectionprovidedforthe j*%- plaintiff'sFirstAmendmentexpressionandthe @+&. government'sabilitytorestrictthe ,f'/ plaintiff'sspeechvaryaccordingtotheforum  inwhichthespeechisproposed.PerryEduc.  Ass'nv.PerryLocalEducators'Ass'n,460 \ U.S.37,4446(1983).Areviewingcourt's 2 firstaction,therefore,mustbetoconducta X "deliberateanalysis,e.g.,ChicagoAcornv. . Metro.Pier&Expo.Auth.,150F.3d695,702   (7thCir.1998)"anddetermine"thenatureof   theforumfirst."NewEng.Reg'lCouncilof `  Carpentersv.Kinton,284F.3d9,20n.4(1st 6   Cir.2002).InKinton,thisCourt  \  specificallyrejectedas"awkward"skipping  2  thiscrucialforumanalysisasafirststep   "becauseitrequiresareviewingtribunalto   knowtheresultsofatestbeforeknowing d  whichtestapplies."Id.󀀀 :  ` ` BecausetheMBTAhascreatedadesignatedpublicforum,itargues, 6 "acontentbasedprohibitionmustbenarrowlydrawntoeffectuate  acompellingstateinterest,"andtheMBTAhasviolatedthese > standards.Inaddition,ChangetheClimateargues,nomatterwhat : thenatureoftheforum,theMBTA'srejectionofitsads  constitutesviewpointdiscrimination.Italsoarguesthatthe B guidelinesunderwhichtheadswererejectedmustbenarrowand > objectiveandcannotleaveexcessivediscretioninstateofficials,  andtheMBTAguidelinesdonotcomply.Finally,ChangetheClimate F ! arguesthedistrictcourterredinnotawardingitattorney'sfees. !B#  ` LischenRidleyfiledsuitinstatecourtonJanuary8, #% 2002,onbehalfofherselfandothermembersoftheChurchwiththe J% ' GoodNews("GoodNews").TheMBTAremovedtheRidleyactionto &F") federalcourt.ThesuitallegedthattheMBTAlackedcompelling (#+ reasonstorejecttheadvertisement,thattherejectionofthe N*%- advertisementwastheproductofviewpointdiscrimination,andthat +J'/ theMBTA'sguidelineinvolvedwasnotnarrowlytailoredandwastoo  vaguetowithstandconstitutionalscrutiny. \  ` AlthoughRidleydidnotdiscusstheforumissueinher X brief,thebriefdidnotethattheoutcomeoftheforumissuein   ChangetheClimatewouldgoverntheRidleycase.Ridley'sreply `  briefalsoarguedthepublicforumlineofcasesandexpressly  \  challengedtheMBTA'sassertionthattherestrictionswere   reasonable,astandardofreviewwhichappliesiftheforumwasnot d  apublicforum.Andatoralargument,inresponsetomultiple `  questionsfromthecourtastotherelationshipofRidley'sclaims   totheforumanalysisissue,counselforRidleyarguedthatthe h forumanalysiswasrelevanttoRidley'sclaimsandcouldbe d dispositiveofthoseclaims.Forexample,Ridleyarguedthatif  theMBTAhadcreatedapublicforumasarguedinChangethe l Climate,shewouldbeentitledtojudgmentonthatground. h Further,counselforbothRidleyandChangetheClimatemovedto  consolidatetheappealsonthegroundsthatcommonissuesoffact p  andlawwerepresentandthesamelawyersrepresentboth !l" plaintiffs. "$  ` ThedistrictcourtdeniedallformsofrelieftoRidley t$& onJune5,2003. ThecourtassumedthattheMBTAadvertising  &p!( programconstitutedanonpublicforumandheldthattherejections '#* ofRidley'sadvertisementswerenotbasedonviewpoint x)$, discrimination,butratheronavalid"contentrestriction $+t&. prohibitingdemeaningordisparagingcontent." Thetrialcourt  heldthatthefactualrecordbasedonthestipulationwas \ insufficientlyclearforittograntthereliefRidleyrequestedon X whethertheguidelineswereviewpointdiscriminatoryontheirface   orwhethertheyweretoovagueandgaveMBTAadministratorstoo `  muchdiscretion.Nonetheless,thecourtrevisitedtheRidley  \  guidelinequestionwhenitissueditsChangetheClimateopinion.     ` OnAugust1,2003,thedistrictcourtalsofoundforthe d  MBTAinChangetheClimate,againavoidingtheforumissue. `  However,consistentwiththelawonnonpublicfora,thecourt   reviewedtheMBTA'sguidelinesanditsdecisiontorejecttheseads h underareasonablenesstest.Thecourtfoundthateachofthe d threeadvertisementsprovidedmisleadingmessagesaboutthe  legalityofmarijuana,andthattwooftheadstargetedminors.As l such,thecourtheld,theMBTA'srejectionoftheadswas h reasonableandnotviewpointdiscriminatory.Thedistrictcourt  alsofoundthattheMBTAguidelineprohibitingmaterialswhich p  promoteillegalactivitywasnotviewpointdiscriminatoryonits !l" face.Nonetheless,initsChangetheClimateopinion,thecourt "$ alsosaidthattheRidleyguidelineprohibitingdemeaningor t$& disparagingmaterialwas"somewhatvague"onitsfaceand"still  &p!( leavestoomuchroomforarbitrarydecisions."Asaresult,inits '#* judgment,thedistrictcourtordered: x)$, ` ` Thecourtretainsjurisdictiontoconsiderany $+t&. wellsupportedmotionformodificationofthe +J'/ MBTA'samendedguidelinesandformodification  ofthisFinalJudgmentgroundedonsomechange  oflaworchangeofrelevantfactual \ circumstancesoccurringafterthedateofthis 2 judgment.Themotionmustbeaccompaniedbya X preciseshowingofthechangeoflaworchange . ofrelevantfactualcircumstances.   ` /` q/_/ThecourtalsorejectedChangetheClimate'smotionforattorney's `  fees. `   \   ` Inthisopinioncoveringbothcases,weaddressthe   parties'argumentsaboutwhattypeof"forum"theMBTAadvertising d  programconstitutes.WeholdfirstthattheMBTAdidnotcreatea `  publicforum.Second,weaddresswhethertheMBTA'spertinent   guidelinesanditsdecisionstorejectbothparties'advertising h areunlawfulasaformofviewpointdiscriminationorasan d unreasonableuseoftheforum.Weholdthattheguidelineson  theirfaceareviewpointneutralandreasonable,andthatthe l decisiontorejecttheRidleyadwasneitherviewpoint h discriminatorynorunreasonable.However,weholdthatthe  rejectionofthethreeChangetheClimateadsconstitutedviewpoint p  discriminationandwasunreasonable.Finally,weconsiderthe !l" challengethattheguidelinesatissueinbothcasesarevagueand "$ delegatetoomuchdiscretiontotheMBTA'semployees.Weholdthat t$& thepertinentguidelinesarenotfaciallyunconstitutional.  &p!(  $+t&. <  I.   Facts j 7   ` Therearenodisputedfactsinthiscase,onlydisputes f astowhatconclusionsaretobedrawnfromthosefacts.Although   onlythepresent2003MBTAadvertisingpolicyisatissue,we n  recountthehistoryofdealingbetweentheparties,whichis  j  pertinentbothtothepublicforumclaimandtootherclaims.Some   factsarereservedfordiscussionastotheparticularparty. r  A.FactsastotheMBTA n   ` TheMBTAisaquasigovernmentalorganizationwhose  purposeistoprovidepublictransportationintheCommonwealthof v Massachusetts.Mass.Gen.Lawsch.161A,5.TheMBTAprovides "r transportationto1.2millioncustomersdailyandto2.5million  peopleintheGreaterBostonarea. Formanyriders,theMBTAis z theonlytransportationoptionavailable.TheMBTAoperates B approximately170busroutes,foursubwaylines,a13branch > commuterrailnetwork,andsixferryserviceroutes. TheMBTAhas   partneredwiththeBostonSchoolDepartmenttoprovide F!" transportationtoupto60,000Bostonpublicschoolstudents "B$ annually. TheMBTAdistributedapproximately15,000to20,000 $& passestoBostonstudents,thevastmajorityofwhomwereinhigh J&!( school.  'F#*  ` TheprincipalpurposeoftheMBTAadvertisingprogramis )$, togenerateandmaximizerevenue.TheMBTAhasstatutory N+&. directivesbothto"maximizeandincreasetotalfarerevenueand  ridership,"aswellasto"establishandimplementpoliciesthat \ provideforthemaximizationofnontransportationrevenuesfromall X sources."Mass.Gen.Lawsch.161A,11.Theadvertisingprogram   effectuatesthissecondpurpose. TheMBTAhasabout40,000 `  advertisingspaces,includinginterior"carcard"displaysin  \  buses,trains,andtrolleys,kingsizeandtaillightexterior   displaysonbuses,andstationandplatformdisplays.  d   ` Throughaprivateadvertisingcontractor,ViacomOutdoor `  ofBraintree("Viacom"),theMBTAattemptstosellallofits   advertisingspaceattheusualcommercialrates. Ifallspaceis h notsoldatthoserates,theMBTApolicyisfirstthatitmay, 0 withoutcosttoitself,"displayadvertisementsorannouncements , calculated(i)toincreaseitsrevenue,publictravel,orgoodwill  or(ii)ascompensationtocompanieswhichprovidebeneficial 4 servicestotheAuthorityor(iii)tobeotherwiseinthepublic 0 interest." Onlyiftherethenremainsadvertisingspaceunsold   doestheMBTA,asathirdchoice,selladvertisementsatareduced 8!" ratetononprofit,taxexemptpubliccharitiesorgovernmental "4$ agenciestofilltheremainingspace. TheMBTAchargesafeeof $& 50%ofthefullcommercialadvertisingratetothosenonprofit <&!( organizations.Theadvertisementsatissueinbothcasesherefall '8#* intothislastcategory.Alladvertisements,ofwhatevertype,are )$, subjecttoguidelines.  @+&.  ` TheMBTArecognizesthatitstwostatutorydirectives,  maximizingfarerevenueandridershipandmaximizingnon \ transportationrevenue,canattimesbeatodds.Innumerous X instancesovertheyears,theMBTAhasreceivedsignificant   complaintsfromitscustomersaboutparticularadvertisements. The `  MBTAmanagementwasconcernedsuchcomplaintswouldthreaten  \  ridershipandfarerevenue.Oftenthoseadshadbeenplacedbythe   MBTA'sadvertisingcontractorwithoutseekingpriorMBTAapproval. d   TheMBTAthenreviewedtheadvertisements;usuallythecontractor `  hadviolatedtheguidelinesbyacceptingtheadvertisements. The   MBTAhas,accordingly,fromtheinceptionofitsadvertising h programin1992,adoptedbothsubstantiveandprocedural d guidelines,describedbelow,tolimitthetypesofadvertisements  itwouldaccept.Indeed,inattemptingtoincreaseridership,the l MBTAinitiatedaCourtesyCountsprogramanddistributesabrochure h thatsays:"We'recommittedtocourtesy."  B.FactsastoPlaintiffs'Advertisements p  Ѐ1. ` ChangetheClimate   !l"  ` ChangetheClimate,anotforprofitgroup,conducts "$ provocativeadvertisingcampaignsinordertogeneratedebateabout t$& thelawscriminalizingtheuseofmarijuana.Ithasconductedsuch  &p!( advertisingcampaignsinWashington,D.C.,inpartusing '#* advertisingontheMetrotransitsystem. Itsoughttodothesame x)$, inBoston,startingin1999,bysubmitting threeadvertisements $+t&. designedtocatchpeople'sattentionandmakethemrethinkthe  wisdomofthedruglaws. \  ` Thefirstadvertisement,(the"TeenAd"),isacolor X photographofateenagegirlwithabaseballcaponbackwards,with   acaptionsaying:"Smokingpotisnotcool,butwe'renotstupid, `  yaknow.MarijuanaisNOTcocaineorheroin.Tellusthe  \  truth..." ChangetheClimatesoughttoplacethisadvertisement   onpostercardsontheinsideofbuses.  d   ` Thesecondadvertisement,(the"MotherAd"),containsa `  pictureofanadultfemalewhoiswritingonawhiteboard,saying:   "I'vegotthreegreatkids.Ilovethemmorethananything.I h don'twantthemtosmokepot.ButIknowjailisalotmore d dangerousthansmokingpot." ChangetheClimatesoughttoplace  thisadvertisementinMBTAsubwaystations.  l  ` Thethirdadvertisement,(the"PoliceAd"),isacolor h photographoftwopolicemenstandinginfrontofanAmericanflag,  withtextstating:"Policearetooimportant...too p  valuable...toogood...towasteonarrestingpeoplefor !l" marijuanawhenrealcriminalsareontheloose." Changethe "$ Climatesoughttorunthisadontheexteriorofbuses,asithad $& doneearlierintheWashington,D.C.transitsystem. Allthree ,&|!( advertisementsalsocontainthewebsiteaddress, '(#*  4_ \O  5  www.changetheclimate.org.6U\OV  7 h5V  )$,  ` TheMBTA'smarketingdirector,LucyShorter,rejectedthe   adsinJanuary2000. Thereasonsstatedwerethat(1)thethree \ adspromotetheuseofmarijuana,and(2)thethreeadswerereally X "reform"adsaspartofanefforttolegalizemarijuanaandassuch   wereinconflictwiththeMBTA'spoliciesondrugsandalcohol.  `  SheattachedtoherrejectionlettertheMBTA'sworkplaceruleson  \  drugandalcoholuse,theadvertisingguidelines,andthe   prohibitiononadvertisingtobaccoproducts. ItappearstheMBTA's d  "policies"ondrugstowhichshereferredwereinternalMBTA `  workplacerules. Therewerenoadvertisingguidelinesdealing   specificallywithmarijuanaorotherdrugs.TheMBTAcontinuedto  rejecttheadsfordifferentstatedreasonsatlatertimes,as 0 discussedbelow.Insum,theMBTA's2003revisedguidelines , prohibitadvertisementswhichpromotetheuseofillegalgoodsor  servicesorunlawfulconduct.TheMBTAhasstatedthateachofthe 4 adspromotedillegaluseofmarijuanabyjuveniles. 0 󀀀2.0 ` Ridley ` (#` (#  ` GoodNewshasadvertisedinthepastontheradio,inthe 8!" YellowPages,inthenewspaper,andviapostedmessageson "4$ vehicles,includingamotorhome.  $&  ` OnNovember29,2001,Ridleysubmittedthefirstofwhat <&!( wouldbethreeadvertisementstotheMBTA'sadvertising '8#* representative,Viacom.Thecopyread: )$, 7`   0 ` ChristiansintheBiblenever@+&.` x` x 0 ` observed"Christmas",f'/` x` x 0 ` neitherdidtheybelieveinlies` x` x  ` aboutSantaClaus,flyingreindeer  0 ` elvesanddrunkenparties.\` x` x 0 ` HowcanyouhonorJesuswithlies?2` x` x 0 ` prophetandre.com X` x` x ` e^^s^Viacominitiallybalkedatrunningtheadvertisement,sayingit   fellafouloftheMBTA'sthenguideline(sincereplaced)permitting `  ittoexcludeany"advertisementthatisindecentastochild  \  viewers,orisofanaturetofrightenchildren,eitheremotionally   orphysically." AfteradelayoftwoweeksandafterRidley'sACLU d  attorneyscontactedtheMBTA,theMBTAdecidedtoallowthe `  advertisementonDecember15,2001,forafourweekcontract. The   advertisementwasdisplayedattheParkStreetandDowntown h CrossingMBTAstations,twomajorstations. d  ` OnDecember26,2001,RidleyaskedtheMBTAtochangethe  contentoftheadvertisementthatwaspostedintheMBTAsystemfor l thelasttwoweeksofherexistingcontract.Thenewcopystated: h ` 0 ` TheBiblesaysinRev12:9"AndSatanwhich  deceiveththewholeworld."Yes,Satansetup  overathousandfalsereligionsintheworld p  causingwars,racismandhatredintheworld. F ! Thereisonlyonetruereligion.Alltherest !l" arefalse.0` x` xwww.prophetandre.com !B#xx ` d dTheMBTArejectedtheadvertisement,findingboththatthe #% advertisement'sowntextconflictedwithaguidelineandthatthe X% ' textreferencedawebsitewhich,uponexamination,containedtext 'T") thatviolatedthatsameguideline.a T#  1      ׀ Thethenextantguideline ($+ WOa  W W  read:"TheMBTAwillnotacceptadvertisements...thatdenigrate  groupsbasedongender,religion,race,ethnicorpolitical \ affiliationfordisplayinandupontheAuthority'stransit X facilities." 󀀀    ` RidleysoughtapreliminaryinjunctiontoforcetheMBTA `  topostthesecondadvertisement. Thedistrictcourtdeniedthe  \  requestonJanuary28,2002,andRidleyfiledaninterlocutory   appealwiththiscourt.Asrecountedbelow,thatappealwas d  mooted. `   ` TheMBTApromulgatedanewsetof"InterimGuidelines   RegulatingMBTAAdvertising"onApril12,2002. Oneofthe2002 h guidelinesprovidedthattheMBTA"shallnotdisplayormaintain d anyadvertisement"thatis:  ` 0 ` Demeaningordisparaging.Theadvertisement l containsmaterialthatdemeansordisparages B anindividualorgroupofindividualsonthe h basisofrace,color,religion,national > origin,ancestry,gender,age,disability,  ethnicity,orsexualorientation.` x` x ` llTherevised2002guidelinesalsoreflectedtheresultsofanMBTA F ! internaldebateoverwhentheMBTAwouldlookatthecontentsofa !B# websitelistedinanadvertisement.TheMBTAhadconsideredthe #% listedwebsitewheninitiallyrejectingRidley'ssecond  advertisement.Underthe2002guidelines,thecontentsofa \ referencedwebsitewouldonlybeconsideredandjudgedunderthe X guidelineswhen"themessageorsponsorshipoftheadvertisement   cannotreasonablybedeterminedwithoutreference"tothatwebsite. `  The2002guidelinesformalizedamorecomprehensivereview  \  procedurewithfourdifferentlayersofscrutiny(byViacom,the   MBTAContractAdministrator,theMBTAGeneralCounsel,andtheMBTA d  GeneralManager)beforeanyadvertisementcouldberejectedbased `  ontheguidelines. 󀀀    ` TheMBTAtoldRidleyonApril25,2002,thatunderthese h newguidelines,itwouldaccepthersecondadvertisement.Basedon d thischangeofstance,thiscourtdismissedRidley'sappealasmoot  onJuly26,2002.  l  ` Bythistime,Ridleynolongerwantedtoposthersecond h advertisement.OnJune13,2002,shesubmittedathird  advertisementtotheMBTA,theonenowatissue.Theadstated: p  ` 0 ` TheBibleteachesthatthereisonlyone !l" religion.Therearenoscripturesinthe !B# BiblethatteachthatGodsetuptheCatholic "$ religion,theBaptistreligion,the #% Pentecostalreligion,theJehovah'sWitness t$& religionortheMuslimreligion.These J% ' religionsarefalse.TheBiblesaysin  &p!( Revelation9:12,"AndSatan,whichdeceiveth &F") thewholeworld."Thewholeworldisgoingto '#* helliftheydonotturnfromtheirungodly (#+ ways.GodsentProphetAndreintothisworld x)$, toteachthepeopletheTruth.N*%-` x` x 0 ` www.prophetandre.com. 򀀀 $+t&.` x` x ` tt ,X'/ TheMBTArejectedthisthirdadvertisementinwritingonAugust14,  2002,afterthefullreviewprocedure,onthebasisthatthead \ demeanedordisparagedalistofspecificreligionsinviolationof X the2002guideline.    ` OnJanuary17,2003,theMBTAissuedarevisedthirdset `  ofguidelines.g T#  2      ׀Underthe2003guidelines,theMBTA"shallnot  \  display"advertisementsthatare:   z` 0 ` Demeaningordisparaging.Theadvertisement d  containsmaterialthatdemeansordisparages :  anindividualorgroupofindividuals.For `  purposesofdeterminingwhetheran 6 advertisementcontainssuchmaterial,theMBTA   willdeterminewhetherareasonablyprudent  person,knowledgeableoftheMBTA'sridership h andusingprevailingcommunitystandards, > wouldbelievethattheadvertisementcontains d materialthatridiculesormocks,isabusive : orhostileto,ordebasesthedignityor  statureof,anindividualorgroupof  individuals. l` x` x ` {TheMBTAconcludedthatthethirdadvertisementdidnotcomplywith h the2003guidelines.   ` The2003guidelinesexplicitlyarticulatedother p  prohibitionsaswell:theMBTAwillnotacceptadvertisementsfor !l" tobaccoproductsoradscontainingadepictionoffirearmsor "$ graphicviolence,oradsthatpromoteuseofillegalgoodsor t$& servicesorunlawfulconduct.Theguidelinesalsoprohibitads  &p!( containingprofanity,obsceneorsexuallyprurientmaterialornude  images(asthosetermsaredefinedinstatelaw),falseor \ misleadingcommercialspeech,libelousspeech,orcopyright X infringingspeech.Theguidelinesfurtherprohibit"political   campaignspeech,"definedas:"speechthat(1)referstoaspecific `  ballotquestion,initiative,petition,orreferendum,or(2)refers  \  toanycandidateforpublicoffice."Finally,the2003guidelines   prohibitanyadvertisementthatcontains,implies,ordeclaresan d  endorsementbytheMBTAorthestate. `   `  ӀII.       ` Weengageindenovoreviewofultimateconclusionsof  lawandmixedquestionsoflawandfactinFirstAmendmentcases. 0 Hurleyv.IrishAmericanGay,LesbianandBisexualGroupofBoston, , 515U.S.557,567(1995);BoseCorp.v.ConsumersUnionofU.S.,  Inc.,466U.S.485,501(1984). 4 ۃ    ` ChangetheClimatearguesthattheMBTAhascreateda 0 designatedpublicforumandthusitsdecisiontorejectany   advertisingmustmeetstrictscrutinystandards. Publicforum 8!" analysisitselfhasbeencriticizedasunhelpfulinmanycontexts, "4$ andparticularlythisonewherethegovernmentisoperatinga $& commercialenterpriseearningincomefrompermittingadvertising. <&!( See,e.g.,LaurenceH.Tribe,AmericanConstitutionalLaw1224, '8#* at992(2ded.1988)("[W]hetherornotagivenplaceisdeemeda )$, 'publicforum'isordinarilylesssignificantthanthenatureof @+&. thespeechrestrictiondespitetheCourt'srhetoric.");Frederick  Schauer,Principles,Institutions,andtheFirstAmendment,112 \ Harv.L.Rev.84,97(1998)("Ofallofthepathsdownwhichthe X Courtmightgoindealingwiththegovernmententerprisecases,the   socalled'forumdoctrine'appearsleastsatisfactory.").Change `  theClimatereliesheavilyonthepublicforumargumentand  \  requeststhattheissuebedecided.    ` TheSupremeCourthasdiscusseddifferenttypesoffora: d  traditionalpublicfora,designatedpublicfora,andnonpublic `  fora.SeediscussioninGeraldGunther,ConstitutionalLaw129294   (12thed.1991);Tribe,supra,1224,at98697.Changethe h Climatearguesthatthestandardofreviewforspeechrestrictions d inadesignatedpublicforumisstrictscrutiny.Ridleyadmits  thatanonpublicforum(sometimescalledalimitedpublicforum) l usuallyresultsinapplicationofalesser"reasonableness" h standard. Weacceptarguendo[ T#  3      ׀thesepremisesthatstrictscrutiny   appliestoapublicforum'sexclusionofspeech. p   ` PlaintiffsarguethatwhiletheMBTA'sadvertising   programisnotatraditionalpublicforum,theMBTAeffectivelyhas \ createdadesignatedpublicforumfortheexpressionofideas X becauseithasacceptedarangeofadvertisementsonitsvehicles   andinitsstations. TheMBTAsaysithasnotcreatedapublic `  forumatall. Ifithas,theMBTAinsiststhatitisatmosta  \  limitedpublicforum,f T#  4      ׀whichistheequivalentofanonpublic   forum,andthatitsrejectionoftheadvertisementsiswithinthe d  limitsappropriatetoanonpublicforum.  `  A.ForumAnalysis    ` TheSupremeCourthasrepeatedlyheldthatthegovernment h musthaveanaffirmativeintenttocreateapublicforuminorder d foradesignatedpublicforumtoarise.I XXC      &B  &B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &BN  &B    NXCX  IOXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXC  I XXC                              &B  &B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &BN  &B  #N  Nޔ#  N#  #XCX Thegovernmentdoesnot  createapublicforumbyinactionorbypermittinglimited l discourse,butonlybyintentionallyopeninganontraditionalforum h forpublicdiscourse.I#XCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXC  I XXC                              &B  &B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &BN  &B  #N  NA#  N#  #XCX IXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXC  I XXC                              &B  &B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &BN  &B  #N  N#  N#  #XCX ԀCornelius,473U.S.at802# XXCs#XCX #NXCXXXC1#XCXXNXC.# XXCׯ#IXCX XCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXC  I XXC      &B  &B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &BN  &B  #N  N#  NXCX ԀTodetermine  thatintent,courtsmustconsiderbothexplicitexpressionsabout p  intentand# XXCų#ԀI#XCX XCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXC  I XXC      &B  &B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &BN  &B  #N  N#  N I!#XCX XCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXC  I XXC      &B  &B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &BN  &B  #N  Nӷ#  NXCX thepolicyandpracticeofthegovernmenttoascertain !l" whetheritintendedtodesignateaplacenottraditionallyopento  assemblyanddebateasapublicforum."Id.Wealso"examine[] \ thenatureofthepropertyanditscompatibilitywithexpressive X activitytodiscernthegovernmentI#XCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXC  I XXC                              &B  &B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &BN  &B  #N  N/#  N#  N#XCX I#XCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXC  I XXC                              &B  &B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &BN  &B  #N  N#  N#  J#XCX sintent.Ip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ԀId.Astothe   natureoftheproperty,theMBTAdoesrunadvertisementsandso `  thereisnothinginherentinthepropertywhichprecludesitsuse  \  forsomeexpressiveactivity.Thatnonethelessleavestheissueof   whetherparticularexpressiveactivitymaybeinconsistentwiththe d  natureoftheproperty.TheMBTAhasdeterminedthatsometypesof `  expressiveactivityarenotconsistentwiththecommercial   enterpriseitruns. h # XXC#XCX  ` # XXC=#XCX Inthe2003advertisingguidelines,theMBTAstates d expresslythat"[t]heMBTAintendsthatitsfacilitiesconstitute  nonpublicforumsthataresubjecttotheviewpointneutral l restrictionssetforthbelow." Nonetheless,astatementofintent h contradictedbyconsistentactualpolicyandpracticewouldnotbe  enoughtosupporttheMBTA'sargument. p   ` ChangetheClimatearguesthatweshouldgivelittle !l" weighttothisexpressstatementofintent:payingitheedwould "$ allowagovernmenttheopportunityimpermissiblytocensor# XXC#XCX #NXCXXXC#XCXXNXCmerely t$& bynewlylabelingtheforuminquestionanonpublicforum.The  &p!( pasthistoryofcharacterizationofaforummaywellberelevant; '#* butthatdoesnotmeanapresentcharacterizationaboutaforummay x)$, bedisregarded.Thegovernmentisfreetochangethenatureofany $+t&. nontraditionalforumasitwishes.Cornelius,473U.S.at802.  Thus,evenifMBTA'spreviousintentwastomaintainadesignated \ publicforum,itwouldbefree#NXCXXXC#XCXXNXC# XXC#XCX Ԁtodecideingoodfaithtoclosethe X forumatanytime.Thereisnoevidencethatthe2003changeswere   adoptedasamerepretexttorejectplaintiff'sadvertisements.To `  thecontrary,theMBTAactedinresponsetoexpressed  \  constitutionalconcernsaboutitspriorguidelines,andcannotbe   faultedfortryingtoadheremorecloselytotheconstitutional d  line. AndiftheMBTArevisedaguidelinemerelyasarusefor `  impermissibleviewpointdiscrimination,thatwouldbefound   unconstitutionalregardlessofthetypeofforumcreated. h  ` Theplaintiffs'argumentassumesthatbeforeJanuary d 2003,theMBTAhadcreatedadesignatedpublicforum.Thatis  unlikely:theMBTAhasconsistentlyhadbothsignificant l substantivecontentlimitationsandprocedurallimitationsonthe h advertisementsitwouldaccept,andthereislittleevidencethe  MBTAaffirmativelyintendedtocreateapublicforum# XXC#XCX #NXCXXXC]#XCXXNXC.Evenso,the p  MBTAhasnotcreatedapublicforuminitsadvertisingprogram !l" underits2003guidelines,whichareatissuehere.# XXC#XCX #NXCXXXC#XCXXNXC "$  ` Since1992,theMBTAhashadsubstantiveguidelines t$& prohibitingalltobaccoads,andalllibelous,slanderous,or  &p!( obsceneads. # XXC#XCX #NXCXXXC#XCXXNXCԀProcedurally,itrequiredalladvertiserstosubmit '#* anapplicationtotheMBTA'sadvertisingcontractor,whichhad x)$, instructionstosendanyadspotentiallyinconflictwiththe $+t&. guidelinestotheMBTAforreview,andtheMBTAreservedtheright  torejectanyaditwished. InAIDSActionComm.ofMassachusetts \ v.MBTA,42F.3d1,12(1stCir.1994),thiscourtnoted#NXCXXXCb#XCXXNXC# XXC #XCX Ԁthatthese X earlyguidelinesleftalottobedesired.    ` In1995theMBTAfurtherprohibitedadswhichwere `  indecentto,ordesignedtofrighten,childviewers. Thenin1999,  \  theMBTAcreatednewguidelineswhich,inaddition,prohibitedads $  containingdepictionsofviolentcriminalconduct,firearms,   profanity,adsharmfultochildren,andadsthatdenigrategroups ,|  basedongender,religion,race,ethnic,orpoliticalaffiliation.  ( Theseprohibitionsarenottheindiciaofanintenttocreatea  publicforum. L  ` TheJanuary2003guidelinesintensifyboththe H substantiveandprocedurallimitationsandprotectionsusedbythe  MBTA.TheJanuary2003guidelinesbetterdefinethesubstantive P limitationsandfurtherbanadsthatpromoteorappeartopromote L theuseofunlawfulgoodsorservicesorthecommissionofunlawful   conduct,aswellaspoliticalcampaignads. Procedurally,the2003 T!" guidelinesalsocreatemorestringentmechanismsforMBTAreviewof #P$ potentiallyprohibitedads. Giventhelitanyoflimitationson $& advertisementsfromtheinceptionofitsprogram,andthe X&!( strengtheningofthoselimitationsin2003,theMBTAhas,atleast (T#*  by2003,throughitspolicyexpressedanintentnottoopenits )%, advertisingspacetoallpersonsandorganizationsforpublic  disseminationoftheirviewsonalltopicswithoutlimitation. \   ` TheMBTA'spracticeofenforcingitspolicyfurthershows X thatitintendednottocreatesuchaforum.Inthefiveyears   precedingtheselitigations,theMBTArejectedatleastseventeen `  advertisementsthatwerenotinconformancewithdifferentaspects  \  ofitspolicy. Variousadvertisementswererejectedforviolating,   amongothergrounds,theprohibitionsonadsdepictingviolence , d  indecency ,profanity ,denigrationofwomen ,andforcontaining `  tobaccoproducts.    ` ChangetheClimatepointstooneexampleofaseemingly h contradictoryenforcementofthepolicywithrespecttoads d containingtobaccoinanattempttoarguethattheMBTAhas  erraticallyenforceditswrittenpolicy.S T#  5      Oneormoreinstancesof l erraticenforcementofapolicydoesnotitselfdefeatthe h government'sintentnottocreateapublicforum.SeeNewEngland  Reg'lCouncilofCarpentersv.Kinton,284F.3d9,22(1stCir.  2002)(nogovernmentintenttocreateadesignatedforumexists \ "evenif[government's]policyofrestrictedaccessiserratically X enforced").Byconsistentlylimitingadsitsawasinviolationof   itspolicy,evenifdoingsoimperfectly,theMBTAevidencedits `  intentnottocreateadesignatedpublicforum.  \   ` Mostimportantly,therelevantSupremeCourtcaselaw   compelstheconclusionthattheMBTAhasnotcreatedadesignated d  publicforum.TheonlySupremeCourtcasedirectlyonpoint,the `  pluralityopinioninLehmanv.CityofShakerHeights,418U.S.298   (1974),foundthatwhereacitybannedall"political"(i.e., h candidateandissues)advertisingonitstransitsystem,while d acceptingcommercialaswellasreligious,civic,andpublic  serviceorientedadvertisements,thecityhadnotcreateda l designatedpublicforum.Id.at304.TheopinionfoundthatI XXC              &B  &B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &BN  &B  #N  N#  N#  #XCX  I*n,XCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXC  I XXC                              &B  &B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &BN  &B  #N  NX#  N#  #XCX [i]n h muchthesamewaythatanewspaperorperiodical,orevenaradio  ortelevisionstation,neednotaccepteveryprofferofadvertising p  fromthegeneralpublic,acitytransitsystemhasdiscretionto !l" developandmakereasonablechoicesconcerningthetypeof "$ advertisingthatmaybedisplayedinitsvehicles.In,XCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXC  I XXC                              &B  &B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &BN  &B  #N  N #  N#   #XCX In,XCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXC  ݀Id.at303. t$& Lehmanisindistinguishablefromtheinstantcase.AsinLehman,  &p!( theMBTAbanspoliticalcandidateandsomeovertlypolitical '#* advertising.Ashere,thetransitsysteminLehmandidnotmerely x)$, acceptadsfromcommercialentities,butalsoacceptedadsfrom $+t&. "churches,andcivicandpublicserviceorientedgroups."Id.at  300.InLehman,theclaimant,ashere,wasdeniedaccesstoboth \ exteriorandinterioradvertisingspace.Id.at320n.12(Brennan, X J.,dissenting).Thetransitsystem,asistrueoftheMBTAhere,   hadwrittenguidelineswhichweremanagedbyathirdpartyentity, `  andwhichinvolvedsomeexerciseofdiscretion.Id.at298300.  \   ` Lehman'srationalethatagovernmentinstrumentalitydoes   notbecomeapublicforumsimplybecauseitisusedfor d  communicationofideashassincebeenreinforcedbylaterSupreme `  Courtcases.SeePerryEduc.Ass'nv.PerryLocalEducators'   Ass'n,460U.S.37,49n.9(1983);UnitedStatesPostalServicev. h CouncilofGreenburghCivicAss'ns,453U.S.114,129(1981). d LehmanwascitedfavorablyinR.A.V.v.CityofSt.Paul,  Minnesota,505U.S.377,390n.6(1992);andUnitedStatesv. l Kokinda,497U.S.720,72526(1990)(pluralityopinion).Indeed, h inInternationalSoc'yforKrishnaConsciousness,Inc.v.Lee,505  U.S.672(1992),thecourt,citingLehman,reiteratedthatalower p  levelofscrutinyusuallyapplieswhenthegovernmentactsas !l" proprietor.Id.at678.# XXC?#-  #N-  -#Y[ N-Ԁ#N- Y["##N  N-Ҝ"#  NXCX  "$  ` TheonlySupremeCourtcasetowhichplaintiffpointsis $ & Widmarv.Vincent,454U.S.263(1981).Widmarheldthatwherea x&!( stateuniversityhadapolicyofopeningitscampusfacilitiesfor $(t#* allregisteredstudentgroups,ithadcreatedadesignatedpublic ) %, forumforsuchgroupsandthusviolatedtheFirstAmendmentwhenit |+&. attemptedtopreventareligiousstudentgroupfromusingsuch  facilities.Id.at277. \  ` Widmarisdistinguishablefromthiscaseformultiple X reasons.First,thepurposeoftheforumcreatedinWidmarwasto   encourageexpressiveactivitiesbystudentgroups.Id.at265.To `  implementthispurpose,thecampusfacilitiesweremadegenerally  \  availabletoallstudentgroups,withoutrestriction,andsothe   groupsreceivedaformofsubsidyfromthegovernment.Id.Unlike d  Widmar,theprimarypurposeoftheMBTAadvertisingprogramisnot `  tofacilitateexpression;ratheritistogeneraterevenue.   Further,therestrictionsuponuseoftheMBTAadvertising, h includingtherequirementofanapplication,payment,andthe d MBTA'sextensivepolicyoflimitation,arefargreaterthanin  Widmar. l  ` SinceWidmar,weknowofnoanalogousSupremeCourtcase h applyingtheforumanalysiswhichhasfoundthatthegovernmenthad  createdadesignatedpublicforum.See,e.g.,ArkansasEduc. p  TelevisionComI XXC                              &B  &B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &BN  &B  #N  ND##  N#  c##XCX I*n,XCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXC  nv.Forbes,523U.S.666(1998);Rosenbergerv. !l" RectorandVisitorsoftheUniv.ofVirginia,515U.S.819(1995), "$ LambI XXC                                                              &B  &B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &BN  &B  #N  N0#  N#  @1#XCX IAn,XCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXC  I XXC                                                              &B  &B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &BN  &B  #N  NI#  N#  I#XCX sChapelv.Ctr.MorichesUnionFreeSch.Dist.,508U.S.384 t$& (1993);Cornelius# XXCDZ#XCX ,473U.S.788;PerryEducationAss'n,460U.S.  &p!( 37;cf.LegalServicesCorp.v.Velasquez,531U.S.533(2001).In '#*  eachofthesecases,theCourtassessedthechallengedgovernment x)$, restrictionsonlyunderthereasonableness/viewpointneutrality  test. \   ` Further,theCourthasrecognizedthatdeferenceto X governmentintentindeterminingthenatureoftheforummay   promote,ratherthanhinder,FirstAmendmentprinciples:IRn,XCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXC  I XXC                                                              &B  &B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &BN  &B  #N  NZ#  N#  Z#XCX  `  Ifen,XCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXC  ` ` I XXC                                                              &B  &B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &BN  &B  #N  Ndm#  N#  m#XCX [W]eencouragethegovernmenttoopenits  \  propertytosomeexpressiveactivityincases  2  where,iffacedwithanallornothingchoice,   itmightnotopenthepropertyatall.That   thisdistinctionturnsongovernmentalintent d  doesnotrenderitunprotectiveofspeech. :  Rather,itreflectstherealitythat,withthe `  exceptionoftraditionalpublicfora,the 6 governmentretainsthechoiceofwhetherto   designateitspropertyasaforumfor  specifiedclassesofspeakers.Iun,XCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXC  I XXC                                                              &B  &B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &BN  &B  #N  N}#  N#  +~#XCX  h ЀIʈn,XCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXC  I XXC                                                              &B  &B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &BN  &B  #N  NȐ#  N#   #XCX  > ` u` uuArkansasEduc.TelevisionComm# XXCb#I"n,XCX XCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXC  I XXC              &B  &B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &BN  &B  #N  N #  NXCX In,XCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXC  n,523U.S.at680. d  ` Thiscourtaddressedthequestionofrejectionof  advertisementsbytheMBTAadecadeagoinAIDSAction,42F.3d1# XXCd#XCX #NXCXXXCE#XCXXNXC. l AlthoughthedistrictcourthadconcludedthattheMBTAwasa h publicforum,thiscourtdeclinedtoreachtheissue# XXC]#XCX #NXCXXXC埱#XCXXNXC.Id.at9.  InsteadweheldthattheMBTAhadengagedindissimilartreatment p  ofadvertisementscontainingsexualcontentandinnuendo,by !l" allowingaratherexplicitmovieadvertisementwhilerejecting "$ advertisementsfeaturingcondomsfromanantiAIDSgroup.Id.at t$& 1011.Thatamountedtothetypeofcontentdiscriminationthat  &p!( "gaverisetoanappearanceofviewpointdiscrimination"whichhad '#*  notbeenadequatelyexplained.Id.at11.ThedecisioninAIDS x)$, ActiondoesnotassistplaintiffsontheclaimthattheMBTAhas  createdapublicforum. \   ` InChildrenoftheRosaryv.CityofPhoenix,154F.3d X 972(9thCir.1998),thenretiredAssociateJusticeWhite# XXC儲#XCX #NXCXXXCƲ#XCXXNXCԀsimilarly   foundthatthePhoenixtransitsystemdidnotcreateadesignated `  publicforumbyacceptingadvertisingonexteriorpanelsonbuses.  \  Id.at976.LiketheMBTA,thesystemdidnotacceptadvertising   frompoliticalcandidates.Thesystemprimarilyrancommercial d  advertising,butdidrunasmallnumberofnoncommercialpublic `  serviceadvertisements,excludingpoliticalandreligious   advertising.Id.Thecasedidnot,though,addressthefurther h issue,whichwedo,ofatransitsystemwhichacceptswhatis d apparentlymorenoncommercialadvertising.   ` Likewise,onecircuit,relyingonLehman# XXCʶ#XCX #NXCXXXC #XCXXNXC,hasrecently l heldthatadvertisingspaceinbusbencheswasanonpublicforum. h UptownPawnandJewelry,Inc.v.CityofHollywood,337F.3d1275,  127879(11thCir.2003).Althoughthecityhadpreviouslyaccepted p  adsfrompawnbrokers,itadoptedanewpolicyprohibitingthose !l" ads.Thecourtfoundthiswasapermissiblecontentbased "$ restriction,seekingtoencouragehighercaliberadvertisingto t$& maximizerevenue.  &p!(  ` TheSupremeCourtopinionscontrolthiscase. '#* Nonetheless,wediscussbrieflycircuitopinionsonwhichChange x)$, theClimaterelies.Withoutsuggestingweagreewiththereasoning $+t&. ineach,eachisdistinguishableonitsfacts.Ineachofthese  cases,unlikehere,thesystemacceptedexplicitlypolitical \ advertising,animportant(butnotdispositive)factorinforum X analysis.    ` InChrist'sBrideMinistries,Inc.v.Southeastern `  PennsylvaniaTransp.Auth.,148F.3d242(3dCir.1998),atransit  \  system'sadvertisingspacewasheldtobeadesignatedpublicforum   wherethesystemhadanaffirmativeprogramtouseitsspaceto d  promote"awarenessofsocialissues"andprovide"acatalystfor `  change."Id.at24952.Underthatprogram,theadvertising   managerpickedissuesofpublicconcernforfreeadvertising.Id. h at249.Further,theplaintiff'sadvertisementshadinfactbeen d approvedandhadrun,andwererefusedonlyaftertheyhadsparked  controversy.Id.at24546.SEPTAhadnoguidelinesU T#  6      ׀similarto l thoseoftheMBTA.SEPTAalsohadapracticeof"virtually h permittingunlimitedaccess,"havingrequestedmodificationsof   advertisementsonlythreetimes.Id.at252. p   ` Similarly,Z T#  7      ׀inPlannedParenthoodAss'n/ChicagoAreav.   ChicagoTransitAuth.,767F.2d1225(7thCir.1985),thecourt \ foundtheCTAhadcreatedapublicforumwhereithadaccepteda X widerangeofpublicissueadvertising,claimedtohaveapolicyof   excludingcontroversialadvertisements,butinfacthadnosuch `  policy,hadnowrittenguidelines,hadacceptedcontroversial  \  advertisements#NXCXXXC#XCXXNXC# XXC姺#XCX ,andwasfoundtohavecomeupwithsuchapolicy   solelytodefenditsdecisiontorejectplaintiff'sadvertising. d  Id.at123233. `   ` InNewYorkMagazinev.Metro.Transp.Auth.,136F.3d   123(2d.Cir.1998),thecourtheldthattheMTAhadcreateda h publicforumintheadvertisingspaceoutsideofitsbuseswhenit d acceptedamagazine'sadvertisements# XXC#XCX #NXCXXXC#XCXXNXCԀusingtheMayor'snameunder  writtenguidelineswhichimposednorestrictiononpolitical l speech,thenremovedtheadvertisements# XXCI#XCX #NXCXXXC#XCXXNXCԀwhentheMayorobjected. h  Id.at130.   ` ChangetheClimate# XXCw#XCX #NXCXXXC#XCXXNXC'sadditionalargumentsontheforum   issueareequallyunpersuasive.ItarguesthattheMBTAmadean \ I XXC                              &B  &B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &BN  &B  #N  N#  N#  x#XCX  Iqn,XCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXC  I XXC                                                              &B  &B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &BN  &B  #N  N#  N#  #XCX affirmativeIn,XCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXC  I XXC                                                              &B  &B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &BN  &B  #N  N#  N#  #XCX I$n,XCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXC  I XXC                                                              &B  &B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &BN  &B  #N  N"#  N#  d#XCX decisiontocontinuetoallownoncommercial X advertising,despitebeingadvisedthatpotentialdisputescouldbe   avoidedbysimplyeliminatingnoncommercialadvertising `  altogether.Thisargumentsuffersfromseveralflaws.Asamatter  \  oflaw,underLehman,thedividinglinebetweenapublicforumand   anonpublicforumisnotthedividinglinebetweencommercial d  advertisementsandpaidadvertisementsfromnonprofitgroups.And `  underArkansasEduc.TelevisionComm'n,theMBTAisnottobeput   toan"allornothingchoice."523U.S.at680. h  ` Also,asamatteroffact,GeneralManagerRobertMulhern d testifiedthatherejectedapotentialsolutionofremovingall  noncommercialadvertising,because:Ikn,XCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXC  #NXCXXXCi##N XNXC#NXCX NXCXXNXCI XXC                                                              &B  &B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &BN  &B  #N  N #NXCX NԀI n,NXCXXNXCNXCXXNXCNXCXXNXCNXCXXNXCNXCXXNXCNXCXXNXCNXCXXNXCNXCXXNXCNXCXXNXCNXCXXNXCNXCXXNXCNXCXXNXCNXCXXNXCNXCXXNXCNXCXXNXCNXCXXNXCNXCXXNXCNXCXXNXCNXCXXNXCNXCXXNXCNXCXXNXCNXCXXNXCNXCXXNXCNXCXXNXCNXCXXNXCNXCXXNXCNXCXXNXCNXCXXNXCNXCXXNXCNXCXXNXCNXCXXNXCNXCXXNXCXCXXNXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXC  I XXC                                                              &B  &B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &BN  &B  #N  N#In,NXCX NNXCXXNXCXCXXNXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXC  I XXC  &B  &B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &BN  &B  I,*NXCX NNXCXXNXCXCXXNXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXC  I XXC  &B  &B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &BN  &B  I2NXCX NNXCXXNXCXCXXNXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXC   l ` ` Ibelievethatthere'salotofpeopleout h therewhorelyonthatinformation,thatsome > timesthat!that'stheonlypracticalaccess  togovernmenttheyhavefromtimetotime.  Forpeoplewholiveintheinnercitythatare p  madeawareofimportantprogramsorimportant F ! socialservices,[Ibelieve]thatwetrulyare !l" performingapublicserviceinanotherflavor !B# ratherthantransportationservice.We're "$ lettingthemknowaboutgovernmentservicesor #% socialservicesornotforprofitservices t$& thatmighthaveadirectimpactontheir J% ' qualityoflife.  &p!( ` 5;` C;Q; Byrefusingtolimittheadvertisingprogramsolelytocommercial '#* advertising,theMBTAwas,thus,notevidencinganintenttoopen x)$, theforumtoallpublicdiscourse.NorwastheMBTAadoptingits $+t&. ownprogramtoinformthepublicaboutissues,asinChrist's  Bride,148F.3d242.TheMBTA'sdecisionisnotinconsistentwith \ adesirenottocreateapublicforum,norisitinconsistentwith X theMBTA'sroleasamarketactor.    ` Finally,plaintiffsarguethat,becausepriortothis `  litigationtheMBTAdidnotlimitadvertisements"iI XXC      &B  &B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &BN  &B  IAHNXCX NNXCXXNXCNXCXXNXCNXCXXNXCXCXXNXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXC  I XXC      &B  &B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &BN  &B  #N  N #  NXCX na  \  constitutionallypermissiblemanner,IFHXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXC  I XXC                              &B  &B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &BN  &B  #N  NhI#  N#  I#XCX "IMHXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXC  I XXC                              &B  &B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &BN  &B  #N  NR#  N#  ER#XCX thecourtshouldfindthatit   createdadesignatedpublicforum. Thisreasoningfundamentally d  misunderstandsthenatureoftheforumanalysis.IiVHXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXC  #NXCXXXCZ##N XNXCZ#  NXCX I XXC                              &B  &B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &B&B  &BN  &B  ݀#N  N `#NXCX NԀThefocusison `  whetherthegovernmenthasintentionallydecidedtocreateapublic   forum.Cornelius,473U.S.at802.#NXCXXNXC_#XCXXNXCԀI,`n,XCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXCXCXXXC  ݀Ifithasnot,thenerratic h enforcementofapolicywouldnotmatter.Further,evenifthe d governmenthadlimitedads"inaconstitutionallyimpermissible  manner"byengaginginviewpointdiscrimination,thatwouldnot l createapublicforumwherenonewasintended.TheMBTA'spolicy h clearlyevidencedanintenttomaintaincontrolovertheforum,and  thustheMBTAdidnotcreateadesignatedpublicforum.Asa p  result,thestandardofreviewisnotstrictscrutiny. !l"  S M !"#(03Q B.ViewpointDiscriminationandUnreasonablenessClaimsinBoth "$ ЀChangetheClimateandRidley #% kl ` AlthoughtheMBTAadvertisingprogramisneithera %@!' traditionalpublicforumnoradesignatedpublicforum,regulations '") arestillunconstitutionalundertheFirstAmendmentifthe H)$+ distinctionsdrawnareviewpointbasedoriftheyareunreasonable *D&- inlightofthepurposesservedbytheforum.Cornelius,473U.S.  at806. \  ` #NXCXXXC3e#XCXXNXCThebedrockprincipleofviewpointneutralitydemands [ thatthestatenotsuppressspeechwheretherealrationaleforthe  W restrictionisdisagreementwiththeunderlyingideologyor   perspectivethatthespeechexpresses.SeeRosenbergerv.Rectors _   andVisitorsofUniv.ofVa.,515U.S.819,829(1995);McGuirev.  [  Reilly,386F.3d45,62#NXCXXXC/o#XCXXNXCԀ(1stCir.2004)#NXCXXXCLq#XCXXNXCԀ("Theessenceofa   viewpointdiscriminationclaimisthatthegovernmenthaspreferred c  themessageofonespeakeroveranother.")#NXCXXXCq#XCXXNXC.Adistinctionis _ viewpointbasedifit"deniesaccesstoaspeakersolelyto   suppressthepointofviewheespouses."Cornelius,473U.S.at g 806.Theessenceofviewpointdiscriminationisnotthatthe c governmentincidentallypreventscertainviewpointsfrombeing  heardinthecourseofsuppressingcertaingeneraltopicsof k speech,rather,itisagovernmentalintenttointerveneinaway g thatprefersoneparticularviewpointinspeechoverother   perspectivesonthesametopic.See,e.g.,GoodNewsClubv. o!" MilfordCent.Sch.,533U.S.98,10709(schoolthathasopenedits #k$ resourcesafterschoolfortheteachingofmoralvaluescannot $ & excludereligiousgroupthatwishestoteachaboutthosevalues s&!( fromareligiousperspectivewithoutengaginginviewpoint (o#* discrimination);Rosenberger,515U.S.819;Lamb'sChapelv.Ctr. )%, MorichesUnionFreeSch.Dist.,508U.S.384(1993);McGuire,386 w+&. F.3dat5759#NXCXXXCr#XCXXNXC,6465(factthat"bufferzone"statuteapplying  aroundabortionclinicsmightincidentallyburdenantiabortion \ speechmorethanproabortionspeechisirrelevanttoitsviewpoint X neutrality).   Ӏ1. ` ChangetheClimate:ViewpointDiscriminationand    ` Unreasonableness    x ` Theadvertisementsrejectedweredescribedearlier.    Othermaterialfactsfollow. ^   ` RobertPrince,whowastheGeneralManageroftheMBTAat ]  thetimeChangetheClimate'sadswererejectedbyShorter,  Y testifiedthatwhilehehadnotseentheadsin2000,hewouldhave  rejectedallthree onthegroundsthattheyencouragedmarijuana a useamongjuveniles,andthuswereharmfultojuvenilesandin  ] violationofthethenexistingpolicy. HefoundtheTeenAdtobe   "gearedtowardsyoungpeople,tellingthemthatmarijuanaisnot  cocaineorheroin,soit'sthelesseroftwoevils,butit'sokay -} tosmokeit." Princedidnotviewtheadassendingamessagethat ) juvenilesshouldbetoldthetruthaboutdrugs.      ` PrincethoughtthattheMotherAdwasalsoharmfulto "" juveniles,becausetheadimplies"thatit'sokaytosmoke L$$ marijuana,whichisagainstthelaw." Princesaidthewordsmeant %H!& "that'Idon'twantmychildrentosmokepot,butIknowjailis '"( ...moredangerous,sothereforeI'mgoingtooverlookthefact P)$* thattheyareallowedtobreakthelaw.'" Princesaidthatsome *L&, peoplecouldhavethelegitimateviewpointthatjailismore  harmfultoachildthanmarijuanasmoking#NXCXXXCw#XCXXNXC,butthatwasnota \ viewpointhewouldallowtobedisplayedontheMBTAbecause"[i]t X allows[children]tothinkit'sokaytobreakthelaw."     ` AstothePoliceAd,Princestated:"It'stellingthem   thatthepolicearenotgoingtotakemarijuanasmokingvery _   seriously,thattherearerealcriminalsontheloose,andit's  [  okaytobreakthelaw." Hefurtherstatedthatthead"saysthat   smokingmarijuanawillnotbelookeduponasacriminalact." When   askedwhetherheagreedthattheadexpressedaviewpointabouthow +{ policeshouldbeused,Princereplied:"Iknowthisadtellsyoung ' peoplethattheyshouldcommitacriminalact."    ` MichaelMulhern,actingGeneralManageroftheMBTAand  thepersonwithfinalauthoritytoacceptorrejectadvertisements, .~ testifiedthathewouldrejectallthreeadsunderthecurrent2003 * guidelines. TheTeenAdpromotedmarijuanause,hethought,by  implyingthatcocaineandheroinwerereallyharmfulbutmarijuana 2   usewasnot. Heheldtheseworriesalthoughtheadstates !." explicitlythat"[s]mokingpotisnotcool."Further,hewas #$ concernedthattheadwastargetedatjuveniles,basedonthe 6% & pictureoftheteenagegirlandthefactthatthelanguageis &2"( writteninterms("cool,""yaknow")thatjuvenileswouldgenerally (#*  use.  :*%,  ` MulherntestifiedthattheMotherAdalsopromoted   marijuanause,andwhileitwas"notasclear"astheTeenAd,the \ MotherAdcouldalsoinpartbetargetedatchildren. Hetestified X thatbydepictingamotherstatingthatsheislessconcernedabout   herchildrensmokingpot,theadsendsthemessagetochildrenthat `  they"cansmoke[pot]andstillbegreatkids." Mulherntestified  \  thathewouldpermitChangetheClimatetopostanadadvocating $  theoppositeviewpoint,saying:"I'vegotthreegreatkids.Ilove   themmorethananything.Idon'twantthemtosmokepot.Butif ,|  mykidssmokepot,theyshouldgotojail."  (  ` MulherntestifiedthatthePoliceAdwasrejectedbecause ' "itsuggeststhatsmokingmarijuanaisnotarealcrime,"andso  promotesanillegalactivity. Hedisagreedwiththeviewthat / "policeresourcesshouldnotbeusedformarijuanaprosecutions." G  Hesaidhewouldallowanadtobepostedifitexpressedthe  oppositeviewpoint,saying:"Policeareimportant,valuable,good. O Policeshouldbeusedforarrestingpeopleformarijuanacrimes." K   Mulhernconcededthattheaddidnottargetchildrenspecifically, !" butstatedthathethoughtthatchildrenweremoresusceptibleto S#$ receivingthemessagethatmarijuanaisnotarealcrimethanwere $O & otherpeople. &!(  ` TheMBTAalsointroducedtestimonyofCorneliaKelley, (#* theheadoftheBostonLatinSchool, apublicexamschoolfor V*%, gradesseventhroughtwelve, whichusestheMBTAfortransporting ,R'. morethan2,100ofits2,400students. Kelleyhadthefollowing  concernabouttheTeenAd:"Thereisamessagetherethatmarijuana \ isokay;it'snotasbadascocaineorheroin.Andthemessage,to X mymind,that'saveryconfusingmessageforyoungpeople.There   isasensetherethatmarijuanaisacceptable." Whenasked, `  despitethefactthattheadsaysthat"Smokingpotisnotcool,"  \  whyitwouldleadstudentstothinkthatsmokingmarijuanaisokay,   Kelleyreplied: d  ` ` Ifyoulookatthatad,that'sarealmixed c  messagetoyoungpeople.Andthestudents 9 withwhomIdealgetagreatdealof _ stimulationindifferentways.Andwhat 5 you'relookingatthereisnotaclearcut   message.Andwhenchildren...arethat  age,wetryandseetoitthattheyunderstand g clearlywhat'slegalandwhat'snotlegal. = Andthatreallysaysmarijuanaisnotcocaine c orheroin.Ittakesmarijuanaoutofthe 9 realmofcocaineandheroin,wherewe  consistentlytellyoungpeoplethatmarijuana  isanillegaldrugandyouwillbeexpelled k foritoryouwillbearrestedforit.... A  ` ` Kelleyconcededthatastudentwouldnotbedisciplinedfor  expressingtheview:"Tellusthetruth.Marijuanaisnotcocaine ?!! orheroin,"butstatedthatshedidnotthinktheadwas ";# appropriatetorunontheMBTAbecauseitsendsamixedmessageto $% students.  C&!'   ` Kelleytestifiedthatshewasparticularlyconcerned B(#) abouttheMotherAdbecauseitappearedtodepictateacherata )>%+ chalkboard. Shefeltthatbystatingthatjailismoredangerous +&- thansmokingpot,theaddoesnotgiveaclearmessagetoyoung  peoplethatsmokingpotisillegal.  \  ` KelleyalsoexpressedconcernthatthePoliceAd"conveys [ thatpolicecountenancetheuseofmarijuana." Whenaskedhow,she  W repliedthatitimpliesthatonewillnotbearrestedformarijuana   whichis"anothermixedmessagetoyoungpeople."  {    ` Ms.Kelleyconcededthatherstudentscouldeasilybe z  exposedtosimilaradswhilewalkinginthecity. Thedifference &v  wasthatsheconsideredtheMBTAtobeanextensionoftheschool " house. Butevenso,sheconcededthattherehadbeendiscussion ~ encouragedinclassroomsattheschool#NXCXXXC=#XCXXNXCԀabouttheissueof *z legalizingmarijuana.  &  ` ChangetheClimatealsointroducedevidenceoftwo % differenttypesofads:otheradsacceptedbytheMBTAwhichcould  beseenaspromotingillegalactivityamongjuvenilesandadswhich -} encouragecompliancewithdruglaws.Itarguesthissecondsetof ) adsexpressestheviewthatthedruglawsaresound.     ` ChangetheClimateintroducedseveraldifferentadsfor "" alcoholicbeveragesacceptedbytheMBTAinthepast.Oneisanad 0$$ forTrinityOaksWine,whichcontainsapictureofawomanina %,!& backlessdressbeinghuggedbyaman.Itstates:"TrinityOaks. '"( It'snotasoapopera.Butitisprovocative."Atthebottom,the 4)$* adstates:"Rememberthewine,"andhasapictureofawinebottle. *0&,  Princetestifiedthatthisadwasnotharmfultojuvenilesbecause  theadwasaddressedtoadults.  \  ` Anotherad,forDocOtisHardLemonade,depictsawoman's [ moutheatinganicecube,andstates"DOITONTHEROCKS."Inthe  W cornerthereisabottleof"DocOtisHardLemonade,"analcoholic   lemonadebeverage,beingpouredintoaglassofice,withthe _   slogan:"Theperfectwaytobreaktheice."#NXCXXXC#YXaXXNXCԀ#NXCXXYXa^#XCXXNXC Whenquestionedasto  [  whetheradssuchasthiswereharmfultojuveniles,Mulhern ?  concededthatalcoholusewasillegalforjuveniles,butfoundthat   alcoholadsdidnotfallunderthisguidelinebecausetheadsdid G notspecificallytargetjuveniles. Princewasalsoaskedabout C thisadandtestifiedthatitwasnotharmfultojuvenilesbecause  theadwasnotaddressedtoyoungpeople,buttoadults. When K askedhowhecouldtellthisadwas"gearedtowardssomebodywho's G 22andnotsomebodywho's20,"Princeresponded:"Becausealcohol  foranybodyunderthatageisillegal." Princeconcededthat O nothingintheadprotectedyoungpeoplefromitsinfluence.  K   ` Kelleytestifiedthatshewasalsoconcernedaboutthe !J" advertisementsforalcoholicbeveragesthatherstudentsseeonthe #$ MBTA. Thedistinctionshesawwasthatalcoholwaslegalata R% & certainagebutuseofmarijuanawasnotlegalatanyage.  &N"(  ` ChangetheClimatealsointroducedtestimonythatthe (M$* MBTAhasrunnumerousadvertisementsthatdiscouragedruguse.At *%, trial,theMBTAstipulatedtohavingrunfoursuchads.Onewas U,'. headlined:"TALKISBETTERFORYOURKIDSTHANDRUGS...SOTALK!"   Ithasacartoonpictureof"McGruff,theCrimeDog,"aswellas8 \ pointersfortalkingtoone'schildrenaboutdrugs,suchas:"Tell X yourkidsyoudon'tapproveofthestuff"and"Tellthemtosayno   ...andthatyouknowtheyknowthedifferencebetweenrightand `  wrong."Theadvertisementfinishesbystating:"Followthesesteps  \  andyou'llbehelpin'yourself,yourkidsandme...takeabite   outofcrime."  d   ` Asecondadvertisement,sponsoredbyDrugFreeAmerica, c  containsapictureoftwochildrenataplayground,withthe _ headline:"Everydayafterschool,mykidlikesto__________. If   youcan'tfillinthisblank,youneedtostartasking.It'sa g provenwaytosteerkidsclearofdrugs.It'snotpestering.It's c parenting.Ask:Who?What?When?Where?Questions.TheAnti  Drug."Athirdadvertisement,sponsoredbyPartnershipforaDrug k FreeNewEnglandandAmerica,aswellastheOfficeofNational g DrugControlPolicy,statessimply:"AreYouWaitingforYourKids   toTalktoYouAboutPot?" Andthefourthadvertisement,sponsored o!" bytheOfficeofNationalDrugControlPolicy,containsapairof 7#$ dice,onewithaskullononeside,andstates:"Justbecauseyou $3 & surviveddrugs,doesn'tmeanyourchildrenwill." &!(   ` TheMBTA'spositionunderthecurrentguidelinesisthat (#* itwouldstillrejectChangetheClimate'sthreeadsbecauseeach :*%, adtargetschildrenandencouragestheuseofillegaldrugs.The +6'. presentguidelinesdonotprohibitads"harmful"tochildren.The  MBTAalsotakesthepositionthatitwouldpermitadswhich \ expressedtoadultstheviewpointthatthemarijuanalawsshouldbe X rethoughtsolongastheadssaidthatuseofmarijuanaisillegal.    ` Attheoutset,itshouldbeemphasizedthattheMBTA's   guidelineitself,whichallowsrejectionofadvertisementsthat _   promoteillegalactivity,particularlyamongchildren,is  [  constitutional.Itclearlyservesaviewpointneutralpurpose,and   itissurelyreasonablegiventhecharacteristicsoftheMBTA's c  advertisingprogram.ItisindisputablethattheMBTAhasa _ legitimate,viewpointneutralinterestinnotbeingusedasa   messengertoconveymessagespromotingillegalconductamong g juveniles.ItisalsolegitimatefortheMBTAtoconsiderthatit c hasjuvenilesamongitspassengers.Further,asavendor,theMBTA  hasalegitimateinterestinnotoffendingriderssothattheystop k theirpatronage.Allofthesearereasonswhytheguidelineitself g isconstitutionalagainstaviewpointdiscriminationattack.    ` Whatwefocusoninsteadarethespecificdecisionsof !" theMBTAtorejectthethreeChangetheClimateadvertisements.#NXCXXXC塢#XCXXNXC n#$ TheMBTA'smererecitationofviewpointneutralrationales(orthe %j & presentationofaviewpointneutralguideline)foritsdecisionsto &"( rejectthethreeadvertisementsdoesnotimmunizethosedecisions r(#* fromscrutiny.Therecitationofviewpointneutralgroundsmaybe *n%, amerepretextforaninvidiousmotive.SeeCornelius,473U.S.at +'. 81113.Inpracticalterms,thegovernmentrarelyflatlyadmitsit  isengaginginviewpointdiscrimination. \  ` #NXCXXXC#XCXXNXCSuspicionthatviewpointdiscriminationisafootisat [ itszenithwhenthespeechrestrictedisspeechcriticalofthe  W government,becausethereisastrongriskthatthegovernmentwill   acttocensorideasthatopposeitsown.See,e.g.,Texasv. _   Johnson,491U.S.397,41117(1989)(strikingdowncriminalflag  [  desecrationstatute;flagburner'sactionexpressed   "dissatisfactionwiththepoliciesofthiscountry,"expression c  whichwas"situatedatthecoreofourFirstAmendmentvalues,"and _ statehadnopowerto"prescribewhatshallbeorthodox"(quoting   W.Va.StateBd.ofEduc.v.Barnette,319U.S.624,642(1943) g (internalquotationmarksomitted)).BecauseChangetheClimate's c advertisementsherereflectcorepoliticalspeechthatiscritical  ofexistinggovernmentalpolicy,weareespeciallywaryof k viewpointdiscrimination. g  ` TheSupremeCourt,aswell,hasbeenparticularlyleery  f  ofjustificationsforquashingspeechtoadultsthatrestonthe !" purportedprotectionofchildren.Whiletheprotectionofchildren n#$ isacompellingstateinterest,seeDenverAreaTelecomm. %j & Consortiumv.FCC,518U.S.727,755(1996),theCourthas &"( carefullyexaminedregulationspurportingtorestonthisground, r(#* oftenfindingthattheysweepmorebroadlythantheirgoalrequires *n%, orthattheydonotservetheirgoalofchildprotectionatall. +'. SeeRenov.ACLU,521U.S.844,87579(1997)("[T]hemerefact  thatastatutoryregulationofspeechwasenactedfortheimportant \ purposeofprotectingchildren...doesnotforecloseinquiry X intoitsvalidity.");DenverAreaTelecomm.Consortium,518U.S.at   75560;SableCommunicationsofCal.,Inc.v.FCC,492U.S.115, `  12627,13031(1989);Bolgerv.YoungsDrugProds.Corp.,463U.S.  \  60,7375(1983);Erznoznikv.CityofJacksonville,422U.S.205,   21214(1975). d   ` Almostfiftyyearsago,JusticeFrankfurterfound c  unconstitutionalaMichiganobscenitystatute;heemphasizedthat _ thestatuteswepttoobroadlytocarryoutitsassertedaimof   protectingchildrenfromsexuallyexplicitmaterial.InButlerv. g Michigan,352U.S.380,383(1957),JusticeFrankfurterstated: c ` ` TheStateinsiststhat,bythusquarantining b thegeneralreadingpublicagainstbooksnot 8 tooruggedforgrownmenandwomeninorderto  shieldjuvenileinnocence,itisexercising  itspowertopromotethegeneralwelfare. j Surely,thisistoburnthehousetoroastthe @ pig....Theincidenceofthisenactmentis  f  toreducetheadultpopulationofMichiganto  <! readingonlywhatisfitforchildren. !" ` ` Id.at383. ";# Ѐ $d$  ` Thecontextofthesecasesisadmittedlynotanexact =% % fit.Ourcasedoesnotinvolveacriminalprohibition,butonlya &9"' refusaltoacceptadvertising.ThecontextinDenverArea (#) EducucationalTelecommunicationsConsortiumisclosest:therethe A*%+ issuewastheFCC'sabilitytocontrolcertainsexuallyexplicit +='- contentoncabletelevision.518U.S.at73436.InbothDenver  Areaandtheothercases,thequestionwaswhetherstatutesor \ regulationshadbeendraftednarrowlyenough.Ourfocusis X particulardecisionstoexcludeadvertisements,notthefacial   validityoftheguideline.Finally,allofthesecasesinvolved `  theregulationofsexuallyexplicit(butnonobscene)speech;  \  sexualspeechisnotinvolvedinthiscase.Still,these   differencesdonotweakenthegeneralprinciplethatapurported d  justificationforexcludingspeechtoadultsonthegroundsof `  protectingchildrenwillbeexaminedcloselytoseeifthe   decisionsreasonablydoprotectchildren. h  ` Therearevarioussituationswhichwillleadacourtto d concludethat,despitetheseeminglyneutraljustificationsoffered  bythegovernment,nonethelessthedecisiontoexcludespeechisa l formofimpermissiblediscrimination.Threearerelevanthere. h First,statementsbygovernmentofficialsonthereasonsforan  actioncanindicateanimpropermotive.See,e.g.,Vill.of p  ArlingtonHeightsv.Metro.HousingDev.Corp.,429U.S.252,268 !l" (1977).Second,wherethegovernmentstatesthatitrejects "$ somethingbecauseofacertaincharacteristic,butotherthings t$& possessingthesamecharacteristicareaccepted,b T#  8      ׀thissortof  &p!( underinclusivenessraisesasuspicionthatthestatedneutral  groundforactionismeanttoshieldanimpermissiblemotive.See, \ e.g.,Cornelius,473U.S.at812;AIDSAction,42F.3dat1012 X (whereMBTAclaimedtobeexcludingcondompromotionadvertisements   becausetheyweresexuallyexplicitandpatentlyoffensive,but `  MBTAallowedothersortsofsexuallyexplicitadvertisements,such  \  asmovieadvertisements,"unrebuttedappearanceofviewpoint   discrimination"isfound).Third,suspicionariseswherethe d  viewpointneutralgroundisnotactuallyservedverywellbythe `  specificgovernmentalactionatissue;where,inotherwords,the   fitbetweenmeansandendsislooseornonexistent.Thissituation h comesupinavarietyoflegalsettings.See,e.g.,Purkettv. d Elem,514U.S.765,768(1995)(judgesmaysometimesfindpretext  inracebasedequalprotectionchallengetoperemptorystrikes l whereprosecutor'sjustificationsforchallengesare"implausible h orfantastic");Tex.Dep'tofCmty.Affairsv.Burdine,450U.S.  248,259(1981)(employer'smisjudgmentsofthequalificationsof p  jobapplicantsmayberelevanttowhethertheemployer'sneutral, !l" meritbasedreasonsforhiringarepretextsfordiscrimination "$ underTitleVII).Allthreefactorsleadustoconcludethatthe t$& reasonsgivenbytheMBTAinthiscaseareinsufficienttoavoida  &p!( conclusionofviewpointdiscrimination.#NXCXXXCҹ#XCXXNXC '#*  ` InherentintheMBTA'spositionisitsrecognitionthat  savefortheriskofinducingjuvenilestosmokemarijuana,the \ refusaltoruntheseadvertisementsforanadultaudiencewouldbe X viewpointdiscrimination.Thatconclusionisessentiallyconceded   intheMBTA'sbriefs.Wefindthepurportedjustificationof `  protectingchildrentobeunderminedfortwobasicreasons.First,  \  thereisdirectevidence,throughstatementsbyMBTAofficials,   thatthereasonforrejectingtheadvertisementswasactually d  distasteforChangetheClimate'sviewpoint.Second,thereis `  evidencethattheMBTA'srejectionoftheseadvertisementsdoesnot   actuallyservetheallegedpurposeofprotectingchildren,andso h theMBTAcannotoffsetthedirectevidenceagainstit. d  ` TheMBTA'sinitialstatementofreasonsforrejectingthe c threeadswas,inpart,thattheadswerepartofChangethe  Climate'seffortto"reformmarijuana[laws]"inan"effortto k legalize."i T#  9      Thiswasadirectstatementofviewpoint g discrimination.Itwasreinforcedbylaterevidenceunderthe2003 /  guidelines.TheMBTAGeneralManagersaidhewouldpublishthe !" MotherandPoliceAdsiftheycametotheoppositeconclusion! 7#$ onewithwhichheagreedexpressingviewpointswhichreinforced $3 & compliancewith,butdidnotquestion,existinglaws.  &!(  ` Supportingthedirectevidenceisourconclusionthatthe  MBTA'srejectionoftheseadvertisementsdoesnotreasonablyserve \ itspurportedjustification.DealingfirstwiththeMotherAdand X thePoliceAd,itisclearthattheyarenottargetedatchildren,   norcantheyreasonablybeconstruedtopromoteillegalmarijuana `  useamongjuveniles.Theadsdonotadvocateillegaldruguse.  \  Rather,thesetwoadsmakeasophisticatedargumentthatthe   criminalizationofmarijuanaimposesworseconsequencesonsociety d  thanwouldalternatives.TheriskposedbytheMotherAdand `  PoliceAdofinducingjuvenilestoengageinillegalmarijuana   activityisremarkablyminimaland,indeed,probablynonexistent.#NXCXXXC#XCXXNXCԀ h TheMBTAiscertainlycorrecttoevaluateindividuallyeachadas d toitscompliancewiththeguidelines.Itsjudgmentsmustbe  reasonableanditwouldnotbereasonabletothinkthatjuveniles l wereexposedtonootherinformationaboutdrugs.Indeed,theMBTA h hasitselfalonghistoryofrunningadsstressingthatdruguseis  illegalandthatdruglawsshouldbeobeyed. p   ` TheMBTAhassoughttoallayanysuspicionsofviewpoint o!" discriminationbyrepresentingthatitwouldrunadvertisements #k$ sayinginboldtextthatthedruglawsshouldbechanged,provided $ & theadsatthesametimeacknowledgethatmarijuanauseisillegal. s&!(  This,itsays,removesanyconcernaboutviewpointdiscrimination (o#* becauseitprovesthatthesamemessagecouldberunifadifferent )%, mannerofexpressionwereused.Butthatisnotso.TheMBTA's w+&. concessionmeanssimplythatitwillrunadvertisementswhichdo  notattractattentionbutwillexerciseitsvetopowerover \ advertisementswhicharedesignedtobeeffectiveindeliveringa X message.Viewpointdiscriminationconcernsarisewhenthe   governmentintentionallytiltstheplayingfieldforspeech; `  reducingtheeffectivenessofamessage,asopposedtorepressing  \  itentirely,thusmaybeanalternativeformofviewpoint   discrimination.SeeR.A.V.,505U.S.at392(Itisviewpoint d  discriminatoryforthegovernmentto"licenseonesideofadebate `  tofightfreestyle,whilerequiringtheothertofollowMarquisof   Queensberryrules.");seealsoCohenv.California,403U.S.15,26 h (1971)(theemotiveimpactofaparticularmeansofexpressionis d oftenmoreimportantthantheunderlyingcognitiveimpactofa  message,andthisemotiveimpactisalsoprotectedbythe l Constitution). h  ` Thissuspicionofviewpointdiscriminationisdeepenedby g thefactthattheMBTAhasrunanumberofadspromotingalcohol   thatareclearlymoreappealingtojuvenilesthantheadshere.It o!" istruethatthereisadistinction:alcohol,likemarijuana, #k$ cannotlegallybesoldtominorsbutcanbesoldtoadults,and $ & marijuanamaynot,ingeneral,legallybeusedbyeitheradultsor s&!( minors.Thatcannotbethedividinglineiftheargumentisthat (o#*  theMBTAistryingtoavoidinducingillegalconduct:theMBTAhas )%, correctlynotdefendedonthebasisthattheadswillinduce  illegalmarijuanausebyadults. \   ` Themoredifficultissueconcernsthefirstadvertisement [ ЄtheTeenAd.Itcertainlymayreasonablybeviewedasdirected  W toattracttheattentionofteenagers.Whatisfarmore   questionableisthereasonablenessofthecontentionthatthead _   wouldinduceteenagerstosmokemarijuana.Theaditselfsays  [  nothingofthesort.Indeed,itsaystheoppositethat"smoking   potisnotcool."Theadthenimpliesthatmarijuanashouldnotbe c  seenasequivalenttoheroinorcocaine.Theclearestmessageis _ thatmarijuanausageshouldbedecriminalized,whileheroinand   cocaineusageshouldremaincriminal.Thetargetingofteenagers g doesnotremovetheadfromtherealmofpoliticalspeech.Manyof c thosewhoareteenagersareeithervotersorwillsoonbevoters,  andtheadisalsoaimedatadults.TheMBTAcannotputathumbon k thescaletoprecludeChangetheClimatefromeffectively g communicatingamessageaboutchangingthelawstoalikely   responsivegroupofvoters. o!"  ` TheMBTA'sownevidencefailstosupportitsargument. n#$ HeadmasterKelley'spointwasnotthattheTeenAdwouldinduce %j & druguse,buttheratherdifferentpointthattheAdpresenteda &"( "mixedmessage."Themixednatureofthemessagewasaboutwhich r(#* drugswerelegalandwhichwerenot;thusherconcernwasthatthe *n%, adwouldpromoteconfusionaboutwhethermarijuanausewasillegal. +'. TheMBTA'sconclusion,however,requiresanadditionalstepthat  theadswouldnotonlyconfuseteenagersaboutmarijuana'sillegal \ status,butthatthisconfusionwouldthenleadteenagerstosmoke X marijuana.Neitherstepinthereasoningissupportedbythe   record. `   ` TheTeenAdmustbeevaluatedincontext.TheMBTAhas _   runnumerousadsthatdiscouragedruguseandencouragerespectfor  [  andadherencetothecurrentdruglaws.Someoftheseadsare   sponsoredbygovernmentagencies,suchastheOfficeofNational c  DrugControlPolicy,whosegoalistofurtherthecurrentdruglaws _ andaidintheirenforcement.Juvenilesareexposedfrequentlyto   antidrugmessagesinavarietyofsettings,h T#  10      ׀includinginschools. g Indeed,schoolsmaybetheveryplacewherestudents,inclass, c debatethewisdomofcertainlaws,asatBostonLatin.Thatthis  oneatbestambiguousadvertisementwouldleadteenagerstobelieve k thatmarijuanaislegal,againstabarrageofcontraryinformation, g isunlikely.YettheMBTA'sargumentrequiresevenafurtherstep.   Thatoneadvertisement,whichonitsfacesaysuseofmarijuanais o!" "notcool,"wouldactuallyinducejuvenilestosmokemarijuana #k$ strikesusasthintothepointofimplausibility.TheMBTA's $ & justificationsfornotrunningtheseadvertisementsare  sufficientlyimplausiblethatonthetotalityoftheevidencewe \ concludethattheMBTAhasengagedinviewpointdiscrimination. X Ѐ ` Moreover,therejectionofthethreeadswouldfailto  W passmusterundertheotherprongofanalysislaidoutin   Cornelius,whichrequiresthatanyrestrictionbereasonablein _   lightofthepurposeoftheforum,becausetheirrejectionis,in  [  context,unreasonable.Cornelius,473U.S.at806;seealsoPerry   Educ.Ass'n,460U.S.at4954("Thetouchstoneforevaluating[] c  distinctions[inanonpublicforum]iswhethertheyarereasonable _ inlightofthepurposewhichtheforumatissueserves.").The   reasonablenessstandardisnotaparticularlyhighhurdle;there g canbemorethanonereasonabledecision,andanactionneednotbe c themostreasonabledecisionpossibleinordertobereasonable.  Cornelius,473U.S.at808.Still,theMBTA'sjudgmentthatthese k advertisementswillfosterillegalactivitybyminorsis,in g context,entirelyunreasonable.SeeKokinda,497U.S.at734;   Huminskiv.Corsones,386F.3d116,155(2dCir.2004)(finding o!" particularrestrictiononspeechinnonpublicforumunreasonable). #k$ Thereasonsstatedabove,whichshowthelackoffitbetweenthe $ & rejectionofthesethreeadvertisementsandtheprotectionof s&!( children,aresufficientforourconclusion. (o#*  ` Wereversethejudgmentofthedistrictcourtastoall *n%, threeadvertisementsproposedbyChangetheClimate,anddirect +'. entryofdeclaratoryjudgmentthattherejectionofthese  advertisementsviolatedtheFirstAmendment.#NXCXXXC-#XCXXNXCԀAtthispoint,there \ isnoreasontothinkthatinjunctivereliefisalsorequired. X B.Ridley:ViewpointDiscriminationandUnreasonableness  W  ` #NXCXXXC#XCXXNXCUnlikeinChangetheClimate,weconcludethattheMBTA  V hasnotengagedinviewpointdiscriminationinRidley,eitherin    thefacialvalidityofitsguidelinesortheguidelinesasapplied ^  toRidley'sadvertisement.Theguidelinesprohibitingdemeaningor  Z  disparagingadsarethemselvesviewpointneutral.Thatisalso  trueoftheapplicationoftheguidelinestoRidley'sadonthe b factshere. ^  ` Astotheguidelineitself,wenotethatthe2003  ] revisiontotheguidelinescontinuedtoprohibitdemeaningor   disparagingads,butdidsoinmoregeneralterms,nottiedonlyto e certaincategoriessuchasrace,religion,andgender.Mostlikely a thatrevisionwasmadeinlightofR.A.V.,505U.S.at392,and   latercaselaw.X T#  11      ׀Thecurrentregulationsimplyprohibitstheuse i   ofadvertisementsthat"demean[]ordisparage[]anindividualor  groupofindividuals,"withoutlistinganyparticularprotected \ groups.Inthiscontext,theguidelineisjustagroundrule:  thereisnoviewpointdiscriminationintheguidelinebecausethe \ stateisnotattemptingtogiveonegroupanadvantageoveranother X inthemarketplaceofideas.SeeElenaKagan,"RegulationofHate   SpeechandPornographyafterR.A.V.,"60U.Chi.L.Rev.873,889 `  (1993)(suggesting,basedonthecourt'slanguage,thattheproblem  \  withthestatuteinR.A.V.couldhavebeenavoidedbydraftinga   statutethatdidnotsingleoutanyspecificgroupsforprotected d  status).` T#  12      ׀ `   ` Similarly,undertheMBTA'scurrentguideline,all _ advertisersonallsidesofallquestionsareallowedtopositively   promotetheirownperspectiveandeventocriticizeotherpositions g solongastheydonotusedemeaningspeechintheirattacks.No c advertisercanusedemeaningspeech:atheistscannotuse  disparaginglanguagetodescribethebeliefsofChristians,norcan k Christiansusedisparaginglanguagetodescribethebeliefsof g atheists.Bothsides,however,canusepositivelanguageto   describetheirownorganizations,beliefs,andvalues.Somekinds o!" ofcontent(demeaninganddisparagingremarks)arebeing  disfavored,butnoviewpointisbeingpreferredoveranother.The \ "reasonableperson"referencedintheMBTA'sguidelinesofcourse X doesnotbelongtoanyparticularreligiousgroup,andwould   protectminority,aswellasmajority,religiousbeliefsfrom `  languagethatwould"demeanordisparage"them.TheMBTA'scurrent  \  guidelineneitherintendsnorhasasasignificanteffectthe   tiltingoftheplayingfieldforspeech. d   ` RidleyarguesthatbecausetheMBTAacceptedthefirst c  twoadsitmustacceptthethird.Werejecttheargumentthat _ becauseagovernmentcommercialenterprisehasopenedupdiscussion   ononeparticular"topic"(say,religion),itmustallowanyand g alldiscussiononthattopic.Reasonablegroundrules,solongas c theyarenotintendedtogiveonesideanadvantageoveranother,  canbesetwithoutfallingpreytoviewpointdiscrimination.Itis k possiblethattheeffectoftheseguidelineswillfallmoreheavily g onsomemessagesthanothersincertaincontexts,butthisdoesnot   itselfmaketheguidelinesviewpointdiscriminatory;theintentand o!" chiefimpactofthenondemeaningrequirementismerelytoensure #k$ acertainminimumlevelofdiscoursethatisapplicableto $ & everyone. s&!( Ѐ ` TheMBTAcouldreasonablyconcludethattheearliertwo r(#* advertisementsdidnotdemeanordisparageotherreligions,but *n%, thatthethirdadvertisementdid.Thefirstadquestionedthe +'. waywardnessoftoday'sChristians;thesecondissuedacondemnation  ofotherreligions.Bycontrast,thethirdadvertisementwenta \ vitriolicfurtherstepanddirectlydemeanedanumberofreligions, X bycallingthemfalse.Ittoldtheadherentsofthosereligions   thattheirwaysareungodly,theyare"goingtohell."In `  addition,thosedemeanedreligionsarelikelytobetheshared  \  religionsofanumberoftheMBTAriders.ThattheMBTAchosenot   tobantheearliertwoads(thefirstunderthreatofsuit)does d  notmeanitwasrequiredtoacceptthethirdad.Thisistrueeven `  hadtheMBTAmadeamistakeunderitsguidelinesinacceptingthe   firsttwoads.#NXCXXXC#XCXXNXC h  ` Ridleyarguesthatevenifthethirdadvertisementis g demeaningtootherreligions,thegovernmentstillmaynotreject c theadbecausethesubjectmatteristheprotectedoneofreligion.  Thegovernmentmaynot,Ridleyargues,"attempttoprotectcitizens k frombeingexposedtoreligiousviewstheymightfindoffensive," g  citingJosephBurstyn,Inc.v.Wilson,343U.S.495(1952),which   invalidatedastatutethatsetupacensorshipboardwhichrefused o!" licensesfor"sacrilegious"films.Thecaseisinapposite,asthe #k$ MBTAisnotcensoringreligiousspeechhereatall.Thestatutein $ & Wilson#NXCXXXCx#XCXXNXCԀactedasapriorrestraintpreventingtheshowingofafilm s&!( deemedsacrilegiousbythecensorsinanypublicplaceinthe (o#* state.Id.at497,503.Theguidelinesatissueheremerely )%, preventadvertisementsfrombeingputupintheMBTA'sownsystem. w+&. Moreover,thestatuteinWilsonwasaimedonlyatreligiousspeech,  andthelanguagemadeitclearthatitsgoalwasto"suppressreal \ orimaginedattacksonaparticularreligiousdoctrine."Id.at X 505.ThegoaloftheMBTA'sguidelinesherehasnothingtodowith   censoringreligiousbeliefs;thepurposeinsteadistomaintaina `  certainminimallevelofdecoruminalladvertisements.  \   ` Thesecondadvertisementandthethirdadvertisement  [  sharethesamebasicviewpoint,yettheMBTAapprovedthesecond   advertisementeventhoughitrejectedthethird.Thisisfurther c  evidencethattheMBTA'sactionsherewerenotmotivatedby _ distasteforRidley'sparticularviewpoint.#NXCXXXC##XCXXNXCԀShehaspresentedno   evidencethattheMBTAeverallowedanyotherspecific g advertisementthatwouldsuggestviewpointdiscriminationtowards c her.Forexample,thereisnoevidenceintherecordthatother  advertisements,religiousorotherwise,wereaccepteddespite k containingdemeaningordisparagingcontent. g #NXCXXXC (#XCXXNXC ` ThetwoweekdelayinapprovingRidley'sfirst  f  advertisementissurelynotabasisforinferringviewpoint !" discrimination.Noristhesagaconnectedwiththeplacementof n#$ hersecondadvertisementthisshowsmerelythattheMBTAwas %j & honingitsguidelinesthroughoutthisperiodandwasworkingout &"( itsenforcementofvariousissuesconnectedwiththeguidelines.V T#  13      ׀ r(#* Ѐ ` WhiletheMBTA'sguidelineanddecisiontoreject  Ridley'sadvertisementareviewpointneutral,theregulatoryscheme \ stillmustbe"reasonableinlightofthepurposeservedbythe X forum"inordertobeupheld.Cornelius,473U.S.at806.The   regulatoryschemeatissuehereiseminentlyreasonable.The `  MBTA'sstatedpurposesinrunningitsadvertisingprograminclude  \  "maximiz[ing]revenue"bymakingmoneythroughadvertisementswhile   notreducingridershipthroughoffensiveadvertisements, d  "maintainingasafeandwelcomingenvironment"foritsriders `  (includingchildren),andavoidingitsidentificationwiththeads   itdisplays. Aguidelinepreventingdemeaningordisparaging h advertisementsislikelytoservethesepurposeswellandis d consistentwiththeMBTA'sown"CourtesyCounts"program. S    C.FacialValidityofGuidelines:VaguenessandVestingof󀀀 l 󀀀Discretion h  ` ChangetheClimatearguesthattheguidelinesmustfail,  inanyevent,becausetheyarenotsufficientlyclearand p  objective.ChangetheClimateandRidleyalsochallengethe !l" regulatoryschemeonthegroundthatitistoovagueandveststoo  muchdiscretioninMBTAofficials.InitsRidleyopinion,the \ districtcourtdidnotaddresstheclaim.InChangetheClimate, X however,thedistrictcourtfoundthattheguidelineprohibiting   demeaningordisparagingmaterialwas"somewhatvague"onitsface `  and"stillleavestoomuchroomforarbitrarydecisions."#NXCXXXC*#XCXXNXCԀ  \   ` Inanyevent,therecordisadequatetoaddressthiskind   offacialchallengetotheguidelines.Since,aswell,theparties d  havethoroughlybriefedthisissue,therearenofactsindispute, `  andtheissueraisesimportantquestionsregardingtheapplication   oftheFirstAmendmenttotheMBTA,wewilladdressthischallenge. h See,e.g.,InreKeeperofRecords,348F.3d16,26(1stCir.2003) d (appellateconsiderationofanissueraisedbutnotruleduponby  thecourtbelowisproperwhere"[t]hepartieshavebriefed[an] l issue,thefactspertainingtoitareessentiallyuncontradicted, h andanadjudicationwillexpeditematters.");AIDSActionComm.of  Massachusettsv.MBTA,42F.3d1,7(1stCir.1994)("[S]olongas p  therecordisadequatelydeveloped,wewillnothesitatetoresolve !l" amixedfact/lawissueinvolvingacoreFirstAmendmentconcern "$ eventhoughthedistrictcourtdidnotaddressitinthefirst t$& instance.").  &p!(  ` Thevaguenessinquiry,totheextentitapplieshereat '#* all,incorporatestwobasicconcerns:1)concernsaboutfair x)$, notice,andabouttherelateddangerofchillingexpression,and2) $+t&. concernsaboutexcessivediscretionbeinginvestedinadministering  andenforcingofficials.SeeGraynedv.CityofRockford,408U.S. \ 104,10809(1972).Themerefactthataregulationrequires X interpretationdoesnotmakeitvague.McConnellv.FEC,540U.S.   93,169n.64(2003);Rosev.Locke,423U.S.48,4950(1975).#NXCXXXCy4#XCXXNXC `   ` FirstAmendmentanalysisisparticularlypronetowords  \  andphrasesbeingtakenoutofcontext.Concernsaboutvagueness   andaboutexcessivediscretionarisemoststronglyinother d  contexts.Thevoidforvaguenessargumentclassicallyariseswhere `  thegovernmentimposescriminalsanctionsforconductorspeech.   SeeUnitedStatesv.Lachman,387F.3d42,5659(1stCir.2004). h Andtheconcernoversubjectivedecisionmakinghasmosteffectin d governmentlicensingschemes.Neitheristhesituationhere.   ` Here,thereisnoseriousconcernabouteithernoticeor l chillingeffects,wheretherearenoconsequencesforsubmittinga h nonconformingadvertisementandhavingitrejected.SeeNat'l  EndowmentfortheArtsv.Finley,524U.S.569,58889(1998)(no p  seriousconcernthatpeoplewill"steertoofarclear"andbe !l" chilledinthecontextofaregulationthatisnotcriminalor "$ quasicriminalandmerelyestablishescriteriaforgrants); t$& ChildrenoftheRosaryv.CityofPhoenix,154F.3d972,983(9th  &p!( Cir.1998)(relaxingthevaguenessstandardinthecontextofa '#*  citytransportationsystem'sadvertisingpolicybecause"[t]his x)$, claimisunliketheusualvaguenesschallengeinvolvingafineor  othersanctionthathasthepotentialtochillconduct."). \   ` Thustheinquiryreducestoaninvestigationintowhether X thediscretiongiventoMBTAadministratorsundertheschemeis   unconstitutionallyexcessive.#NXCXXXC<#XCXXNXCThevoidforvaguenessdoctrineand `  theexcessivedelegationdoctrinearetechnically"analytically  \  distinct,"Griffinv.Sec'yofVeteransAffairs,288F.3d1309,   1329(Fed.Cir.2002),butoverlaponthefactshere.Virtually#NXCXXXCD#XCXXNXC d  alloftheSupremeCourtcasestodetermineexcessivediscretion `  challengeshavedealtwithtraditionalpublicfora.SeeGriffin,   288F.3dat132122.#NXCXXXCF#XCXXNXCԀThedangerofexcessivediscretioninthis h caseisthatitcouldleadtoviewpointdiscriminatorydecisionsin d practiceevenunderafaciallyneutralregulation.Wehavealready  concludedtherewasnoviewpointdiscriminationinRidley,andthat l theviewpointdiscriminationinChangetheClimatedidnotresult h fromthefaceofthoseguidelines.   ` ThecasesthatChangetheClimateandRidleyciteall p  dealwithlicensingschemesregulatingtheexerciseofspeechin !l" traditionalpublicfora.Thedissentsimilarlyreliesoncasesand "$ standardsthatareoutofcontextbecausetheydealwith t$& traditionalpublicfora.See,e.g.,ForsythCounty,Ga.v.  &p!( NationalistMovement,505U.S.123,13033(1992)(strikingdown '#* permitschemefordemonstrationoncourthousesteps);Shuttlesworth x)$, v.CityofBirmingham,Ala.,394U.S.147,15051(1969)(striking $+t&. downpermitrequirementforprotestoncitystreets).Inthese  situations,itistrue,delegationsofauthoritytograntlicenses \ forspeechmayoperateaspriorrestraints.Assuch,those X delegationsmustmeetthestringentstandardofcontaining"narrow,   objective,anddefinitestandardstoguidethelicensing `  authority."Shuttlesworth,394U.S.at15051.Thesettingsfor  \  thosecasesareunarguablypublicforaopentoeverybodyandtoall   typesofspeech;theverylimitedobstructionspermittedbythe d  licensingrequirementareallowedprimarilysothatthestatecan `  maintainbasicorder.    ` Theregulatoryschemeatissuehereisnotalicensing h scheme,andtheMBTAadvertisingprogramisneitheratraditional d noradesignatedpublicforum.See,e.g.,Kokinda,497U.S.at725  (governmentholdsasproprietor,andnotaslicensor,when l operatinganonpublicforum).Excessivediscretionandvagueness h inquiriesundertheFirstAmendmentarenotstaticinquiries,  impervioustocontext.SeeRenov.ACLU,521U.S.844,87172 p  (1997)(thevaguenessinquiryismostrigorousinacriminal !l" context,wherethereisahighriskspeechwillbechilled); "$ Finley,524U.S.at58183,58889(requirementsthatmightbe t$& vagueinothercontexts,likeacriminalstatute,werenotvague  &p!( whenusedascriteriaforagrantprocessthatwassubjectiveby '#* nature);Vill.ofHoffmanEstatesv.Flipside,HoffmanEstates, x)$, Inc.,455U.S.489,498(1982)("Thedegreeofvaguenessthatthe $+t&. Constitutiontoleratesaswellastherelativeimportanceoffair  noticeandfairenforcementdependsinpartonthenatureofthe \ enactment."). X  ` Ourviewisthatagrantofdiscretiontoexercise   judgmentinanonpublicforummustbeupheldsolongasitis `  "reasonableinlightofthecharacteristicnatureandfunction"of  \  thatforum.Griffin,288F.3dat1323;seealsoFinley,524U.S.   at589590(approvingbroaddiscretiontotakeintoconsideration d  "generalstandardsofdecencyandrespectforthediversebeliefs `  andvaluesoftheAmericanpublic"inNEAgrantprocess,giventhe   inherentlysubjectivenatureofthesetypesofselection h processes)."[S]electivity"and"discretionaryaccess"are d definingcharacteristicsofnonpublicfora,whichunlikepublic  foraarenotintendedtobeopentoallspeech.SeeGriffin,288 l F.3dat1323.  h  ` TheMBTA'sregulatoryguidelines,whichinRidleyreject  anyadvertisementthat"demeansordisparagesanindividualor p  groupofindividuals"andwhichuse"prevailingcommunity !l" standards"todeterminewhetheradvertisementsfallafoulofthis "$ standard,arenotunreasonablyvagueoroverbroad,giventhenature t$& oftheMBTA'sadvertisingprogramanditschiefpurposeofraising  &p!( revenuewithoutlosingridership.Somekindsofadvertisements '#* thatwillbeconsistentwiththispurposemaybedifficultto x)$, pinpointwithexactprecision;somedegreeofinterpretation,and $+t&. somerelianceonconceptslike"prevailingcommunitystandards,"is  inevitable.InGriffin,thecourtfoundthatconsiderable \ discretionleftinthehandsoftheDepartmentofVeteransAffairs X wasacceptabletoensurethepreservationofthecommemorative   functionsofnationalcemeteries;theMBTAisalsoentitledtosome `  discretionindeterminingwhichadvertisementsarelikelyto  \  alienateridershipandcostitrevenue.Thesedecisionsalso"may   defyobjectivedescriptionand...varywithindividual d  circumstances."Griffin,288F.3dat1325. `   ` Inanyevent,forpurposesoftheacceptanceorrejection   ofadvertising,wordslike"demean"or"disparage"havereasonably h clearmeanings.Werecognizethatseveralcourtshavestruckdown, d onvaguenessgrounds,schoolspeechcodesthatincorporated  somewhatsimilarterms.SeeDambrotv.CentralMich.Univ.,55 l F.3d1177,118384(6thCir.1995);UWMPost,Inc.v.Boardof h RegentsoftheUniv.ofWis.Sys.,774F.Supp.1163,117881(E.D.  Wis.1991)#NXCXXXC4G#XCXXNXC;Doev.Univ.ofMich.,721F.Supp.852,86667(E.D. p  Mich.1989).Butcf.UWMPost,774F.Supp.at117980(Inthe !l" contextofauniversityhatespeechregulation,theword"demean" "$ isnot"undulyvague,"sinceithasa"reasonablyclear"meaning: t$& "todebaseindignityorstature.").c T#  14      ׀#NXCXXXC that,ifachildaskedanadultthemeaningof d suchindecentorfrightfullanguage,theadult : couldgiveareasonableandtruthfulanswer  withoutreferencetoindecentorfrightening  activitiesorlanguage.l` x` x F ` In1999,theMBTAformulatednewbidspecificationsfor h transitadvertising,whichcontainedanewversionofthe  advertisingpolicy.The1999bidspecificationsprohibitedthe p  displayofadvertisementsfortobaccoproductsandechoedthe1992 !l" bidspecifications,withthefollowingprovisionsadded: "$ 8 ` TheMBTAwillnotacceptadvertisements t$& containingviolentcriminalcontent,firearms, J% ' profanecontent,promotionalmaterialsthatis  &p!( harmfultojuveniles,andadvertisementsthat &F") denigrategroupsbasedongender,religion, '#* race,ethnicorpoliticalaffiliation.(#+` x` x : ` Subsequently,theMBTAwentthroughtwomorerevisionsof N*%- itsguidelines,asdescribedinthemajorityopinion.Anewsetof +J'/ "InterimGuidelinesRegulatingMBTAAdvertising,"promulgatedon  April12,2002,providedthattheMBTA"shallnotdisplayor \ maintainanyadvertisement"thatis: X 8 ` Demeaningordisparaging.Theadvertisement   containsmaterialthatdemeansordisparages   anindividualorgroupofindividualsonthe `  basisofrace,color,religion,national 6   origin,ancestry,gender,age,disability,  \  ethnicity,orsexualorientation. 2 ` x` x OnJanuary17,2003,theMBTAissuedyetanotherrevisionofits   guidelines,removingthelanguageconcerningrace,color,etc.,and :  addingthe"prevailingcommunitystandards"metricfordetermining 6 whethermaterialisdemeaningordisparaging.   ` Asageneralrule,"themorerestrictivethecriteriafor > admissionandthemoreadministrativecontroloveraccess,theless : likelyaforumwillbedeemedpublic."Hopperv.CityofPasco,  241F.3d1067,1078(9thCir.2001).Overtheyears,theMBTA's B criteriaforadmissionhavebeenconfusingatbest,andithas > alwayslefttheinitialdeterminationsofwhetheradvertisements  mayrunafouloftheadvertisingpolicytothesubjective F ! evaluationofaprivatecontractor.Thoseadvertisementssentto !B# theMBTAforreviewhavereceivedasimilarlysubjectiveevaluation #% fromMBTAemployees.Thus,thesubjectivestandardsinthese J% ' policiescreateapotentialforabuse,specificallythepotential &F") forviewpointdiscrimination.SeeHopper,241F.3dat1079("The (#+ potentialforabuseofsuchunboundeddiscretionisheightenedby N*%- theinherentlysubjectivenatureofthestandarditself."). +J'/  ` Iemphasizethat  8 ` [t]hegovernmentmaynot'create'apolicyto \ implementitsnewlydiscovereddesireto 2 suppressaparticularmessage.Neithermay X thegovernmentinvokeanotherwiseunenforced . policytojustifythatsuppression.   Therefore,thegovernment'sstatedpolicy,   withoutmore,isnotdispositivewithrespect `  tothegovernment'sintentinagivenforum.6  ` x` x wAirLinePilots,45F.3dat1153(citationsomitted).In  2  determiningwhethertheMBTAhasdesignateditsadvertisingspace   asapublicforum,then,onecannotrelyonrecentattemptsbythe :  MBTAtoreviseitsadvertisingpolicyduringthecourseofthis 6 litigationtoindicateitspriorintentonthenatureofits  advertisingspaceasaforum. >  ` Similarly,theMBTA'swrittenpoliciescannotbe : consideredwithoutreferencetotheirapplicationintheyears  precedingthisaction.Indeterminingwhetherthegovernmenthas B designatedpropertytobeapublicforum,wehavepreviouslystated > that"actualpracticespeakslouderthanwords."GraceBible  Fellowship,Inc.v.MaineSch.Admin.Dist.No.5,941F.2d45,47 F ! (1stCir.1991)."[C]onsistencyinapplicationisthehallmarkof !B# anypolicydesignedtopreservethenonpublicstatusofaforum. #% Apolicypurportingtokeepaforumclosed(oropentoexpression J% ' onlyoncertainsubjects)isnopolicyatallforpurposesof &F") publicforumanalysisif,inpractice,itisnotenforcedorif (#+ exceptionsarehaphazardlypermitted."Hopper,241F.3dat1076. N*%- InAIDSAction,weadmonishedtheMBTAthatifitweretobe +J'/ allowedtorestrictspeech,"itwill,attheleast,needtoact  accordingtoneutralstandards,anditwillneedtoapplythese \ standardsinsuchawaythatthereisnoappearancethat'the X [government]isseekingtohandicaptheexpressionofparticular   ideas.'"42F.3dat13(quotingR.A.V.,505U.S.at394).In `  practice,theMBTAhasnotrestrictedaccesstoitsadvertising  \  spaceinamannersufficienttoindicateanintenttomaintainit   asanonpublicorlimitedpublicforum. d   ` WhenwedecidedAIDSAction,wefoundthat"despitethe `  MBTA'sattemptstopresentitselfasavigilantgatekeeper,the   onlyadsotherthanthe1993[AIDSawareness]adsthatweknowthe h MBTArecentlyrejectedarecertainCalvinKleinadswhichsomehow d mighthavebeenmisconstruedasendorsingtheKuKluxKlan,andan  animalrightsadvertisementfeaturingaphotographofamaimed l dog."Id.at9.InreviewingtheMBTA'sapplicationofits h advertisingpoliciessinceAIDSAction,Ifindthatlittlehas  changed.DuringthefiveyearsprecedingChangetheClimate's p  firstinteractionswithPTD,between1995and1999,theMBTA !l" refusedtopostonlyfifteenadvertisements.Examplesincludean "$ advertisementforthemoviePsycho,whichfeaturedanimageofa t$& nudewomaninashowerwithbloodatthebottom,rejectedbecause  &p!( itwas"inconflictwiththeMBTA'sdignityintheworkplaceand '#* theCommonwealth'sdomesticviolenceprograms,"neitherofwhich x)$, criteriaaresetforthintheMBTA'sadvertisingpolicy.Rejection $+t&. ofadsalsoappearstohaveoccurredonanadhoc,subjective  basis.Forexample,MBTArefusedtopostanadvertisementfromthe \ conservationorganizationSurfriders,aimedatdiscouragingpeople X fromleavingcigarettebuttsonthebeach,apparentlybecauseit   includedimagesofpeoplesmoking.TheMBTAposted,however, `  advertisementsforAlItaliaairlinethatfeaturedawomanholding  \  acigarettewiththecaption,"Createabuzz."Thus,theadhoc     rejectionofahandfulofadsoverthepastdecadecannotserveas d  thebasisforconcludingthatMBTAintendeditsadvertisingspace `  asanonpublicforum.    B.TheNatureoftheForumandItsCompatibilitywithExpression  h  ` Itisalsonecessarytoexamine"thenatureofthe 0 propertyanditscompatibilitywithexpressiveactivitytodiscern , thegovernment'sintent."Cornelius,473U.S.at802(citations  omitted).Thisinquiryinvolvesexamining"therelationship 4 betweenthereasonsforanyrestrictiononaccessandtheforum's 0 purpose."UnitedFoodandCommercialWorkersUnion,Local1099v.   SouthwestOhioReg'lTransitAuth.,163F.3d341,351(6thCir. 8!" 1998).ThedistrictcourtinChangetheClimatefoundthat"[t]he "4$ principalpurposeoftheMBTAusingsomeofthisspacefor $& advertisingistoearnrevenueinsupportoftheMBTA'sgoalof <&!( providingtransportation."214F.Supp.2d125,132(D.Mass. '8#* 2002).Ingeneral,"thecourtswillinferanintentonthepartof )$, thegovernmenttocreateapublicforumwherethegovernment's @+&. justificationfortheexclusionofcertainexpressiveconductis  unrelatedtotheforum'spurpose,evenwhenspeakersmustobtain \ permissiontousetheforum."UnitedFood,163F.3dat351.Forum X analysismusttherefore"involveacarefulscrutinyofwhetherthe   governmentimposedrestrictiononaccesstopublicpropertyis `  trulypartof'theprocessoflimitinganonpublicforumto  \  activitiescompatiblewiththeintendedpurposeoftheproperty.'"   Id.at35152(quotingPerry,460U.S.at49).Courtswillhold d  "thatthegovernmentdidnotcreateapublicforumonlywhenits `  standardsforinclusionandexclusionareclearandaredesignedto   preventinterferencewiththeforum'sdesignatedpurpose."Id. h  ` TheSupremeCourthasindicatedthat"[i]ncaseswhere d theprincipalfunctionofthepropertywouldbedisruptedby  expressiveactivity,theCourt[hasbeen]particularlyreluctantto l holdthatthegovernmentintendedtodesignateapublicforum." h Cornelius,473U.S.at804.TheMBTAcanhardlyarguethatits  advertisingspaceisgenerallyincompatiblewithexpressive p  activity,orthattheMBTA'sprincipalfunctionofproviding !l" transportationwouldbedisruptedbytheexpressiveactivity "$ proposedbyChangetheClimateorRidley,sinceithasroutinely t$& madeitsadvertisingspaceavailabletobothcommercialandpublic  &p!( issueadvertisingonawiderangeofissueswithoutanydisruption. '#* See,e.g.,PlannedParenthood,767F.2dat1232("[S]inceCTA x)$, alreadypermitsitsfacilitiestobeusedforpublicissueand $+t&. politicaladvertising,itcannotarguethatsuchuseis  incompatiblewiththeprimaryuseofthefacilities.").Itis \ clearthattheMBTA"createdaforumthatissuitableforthe X speechinquestion...."Christ'sBride,148F.3dat252.    ` ThemajoritywronglyemphasizestheMBTA'sproprietary `  rolewithregardtoitsadvertisingspace.Inanearlycase  \  addressingadvertisingonpublictransitsystems,theSupremeCourt   heldthatbecause"thecityisengagedincommerce,"and"[t]hecar d  cardspace,althoughincidentaltotheprovisionofpublic `  transportation,isapartofthecommercialventure,""acity   transitsystemhasdiscretiontodevelopandmakereasonable h choicesconcerningthetypeofadvertisingthatmaybedisplayedin d itsvehicles."Lehmanv.CityofShakerHeights,418U.S.298,303  (1974).SinceLehman,publicforumanalysishasdeveloped l considerablybuthascontinuedtofindthat"[w]herethegovernment h isactingasaproprietor,managingitsinternaloperations,rather  thanactingaslawmakerwiththepowertoregulateorlicense,its p  actionwillnotbesubjectedtotheheightenedreviewtowhichits !l" actionsasalawmakermaybesubject."Lee,505U.S.at678.The "$ districtcourt'sfindingthat"[t]heprincipalpurposeoftheMBTA t$& usingsomeofthisspaceforadvertisingistoearnrevenuein  &p!( supportoftheMBTA'sgoalofprovidingtransportation,"Changethe '#* Climate,214F.Supp.2dat132,wouldsuggestthattheMBTAis x)$, actingasaproprietor.InLee,however,itwas"thecommercial $+t&. andrestrictednatureofanairportconcoursewhichsuggestedthat  thegovernmentdidnotintendtheconcoursetobeprimarilyaforum \ forexpression."Christ'sBride,148F.3dat250("Wedonotread X Lee...tomeanthateverytimethegovernmentrunsacommercial   enterpriseithas,bydefinition,decidednottocreateanopen `  forum.").WhiletheprimarypurposeoftheMBTA'sadvertising  \  spacemaybetogeneraterevenue,itisclearthattheMBTA's   policyofallowingand,infact,encouragingnoncommercial d  advertising(byofferingadiscount)demonstratesitsjudgmentthat `  suchadvertisingdoesnotconflictwithitsproprietaryinterests.   AirLinePilots,45F.3dat1157(findingno"indicationthat h permittingpublicinterestgroupstoadvertisewouldthreatenthe d vitalityoftheCity'scommercialinterestsinderivingrevenue  fromtheadvertisingdisplays.").Havingopeneditsadvertising l spacefornoncommercialdiscourse,theMBTAnowwishestoactas h alawmaker,andnotasaproprietor,inattemptingtoregulatethe  contentofthatdiscourse,whichindicatesthatithasdesignated p  itsadvertisingspaceapublicforum.NewYorkMagazine,136F.3d !l" at129("Wherethegovernmentactedforthepurposeofbenefitting "$ thepublic,...theCourthasfoundapublicforum."). t$&  ` Insomecontexts,however,limitingadvertisingspacehas  &p!( beenfoundconsistentwithaproprietarypurpose.InUptownPawn '#* &Jewelry,Inc.v.CityofHollywood,337F.3d1275,1279(11th x)$, Cir.2003),discussedbythemajority,Maj.op.at28,theEleventh $+t&. CircuitconcludedthattheCity'sprohibitiononpawnshop  advertisingonparkbenches"evidencesanintent,nottocreatea \ publicforum,buttoactinaproprietarycapacitytomanagea X commercialventure."Id.at1281.Here,however,thereisno   evidencethatpostingChangetheClimate'sorRidley's `  advertisementswouldhaveanyadverseeffectontheMBTA'sability  \  togeneraterevenuethroughitsadvertisingspace,regardlessof   whethertheirmessagesarecontroversial.Aspreviouslydescribed, d  theMBTAhaspostedarangeofcommercialandpublicissue `  advertisingthatwouldundermineanyargumentthatadvertisements   likethosenowproposedcouldbeexcludedintheinterestsof h protectingtherevenuegeneratingcapacityofitsadvertising d space.Here,then,"thepurposeoftheforumdoesnotsuggestthat  itisclosed,andthebreadthofpermittedspeechpointsinthe l oppositedirection."Christ'sBride,148F.3dat253. h  ` Moreover,theSupremeCourthasconsideredthe  government'spracticeofexcludingspeechfromaforum"notbecause p  theexclusionofcategoriesofspeechcreatesanonpublicforum, !l" butbecausethenatureoftheexcludedcategoriesshedslighton "$ whetherthegovernmentwasactingasaproprietororaregulator." t$& NewYorkMagazine,136F.3dat130;Cornelius,473U.S.at805  &p!( ("Thedecisionofthe[g]overnmenttolimitaccesstothe[forum] '#* isnotdispositiveinitself;instead,itisrelevantforwhatit x)$, suggestsaboutthe[g]overnment'sintentincreatingtheforum."). $+t&. InLehman,theCourtfoundthatthe26year,consistentlyenforced  banonnoncommercialadvertisingwasconsistentwiththe \ government'sroleasaproprietor,because"[r]evenueearnedfrom X longtermcommercialadvertisingcouldbejeopardizedbya   requirementthatshorttermcandidacyorissueoriented `  advertisementsbedisplayed."418U.S.at304.Othercourtshave  \  followedLehmantoholdthatatotalbanonnoncommercialspeech   maybeconsistentwiththegovernmentactinginaproprietary d  capacityandhavefoundtransportationadvertisingspacestobe `  nonpublicforawhenthegovernment"consistentlypromulgatesand   enforcespoliciesrestrictingadvertising...tocommercial h advertising."ChildrenoftheRosaryv.CityofPhoenix,154F.3d d 982,978(9thCir.1998);Lebronv.Nat'lR.R.PassengerCorp.  (AMTRAK),69F.3d650,656(2dCir.1995).Whentheadvertising l spacehasbeenopenedtononcommercialspeech,however,courts h havedistinguishedtheadvertisingspaceinquestionfromthetotal  banonnoncommercialspeechpresentinLehman. p  8 ` Disallowingpoliticalspeech,andallowing !l" commercialspeechonly,indicatesthatmaking !B# moneyisthemaingoal.Allowingpolitical "$ speech,conversely,evidencesageneralintent #% toopenaspacefordiscourse,anda t$& deliberateacceptanceofthepossibilityof J% ' clashesofopinionandcontroversythatthe  &p!( CourtinLehmanrecognizedasinconsistent &F") withsoundcommercialpractice.'#*` x` x )NewYorkMagazine,136F.3dat130;Lebronv.WashingtonMetro. x)$, AreaTransitAuth.,749F.2d893,896(D.C.Cir.1984)("Thereisno $+t&. ...questionthatWMATAhasconverteditssubwaystationsinto  publicforabyaccepting...politicaladvertising.").TheMBTA \ hasnolongstandingpolicyofprohibitingpublicissue X advertisementslikeChangetheClimate'sorRidley's.While   excludingpoliticalcampaignspeechfromitsadvertisingspace,the `  MBTAhasallowedandintentionallyencouragednoncommercial  \  advertising,includingpublicissueadvertisingregardingsocial   issueslikedrugs,crime,violence,abortion,AIDS,suicide,and d  religion. `   ` TheprovisionsoftheMBTA'sRevisedInterimGuidelines   underwhichitrefusedtopostChangetheClimate'sadvertisements h alsoindicatethatitisactingasaregulator/lawmakerandnotas d aproprietor.Theguidelinesprohibitthepostingofany  advertisementthat"promotesorencourages,orappearstopromote l orencourage,theuseorpossessionofunlawfulorillegalgoodsor h services,"orunlawfulconduct.TheMBTAhasnotofferedany  commercialjustificationforitsinterestinprohibiting p  advertisementscontainingsuchmaterial,andwesee"nocommercial !l" reasonwhy[theMBTA]hasanyspecialinterestin[preventing "$ unlawfulconduct];[theMBTA's]interestisonlytheinterestin t$& upholdingthelawbecauseitisthelaw."NewYorkMagazine,136  &p!( F.3dat130.Thisiscertainlyaregulatoryandnotaproprietary '#*  interest. x)$,  ` Othercourtshavesimilarlyfoundtheadvertisingspaces   ofvariousurbantransportationsystemstobeadesignatedpublic \ forumwhenthegovernmenthasallowed"awidevarietyof X commercial,publicservice,publicissue,andpoliticalads,"   PlannedParenthood,767F.2dat1232,"politicalandothernon `  commercialadvertisinggenerally,"NewYorkMagazine,136F.3dat  \  130,or"publicservice,publicissue,andpoliticaladvertisements   inadditiontotraditionalcommercialadvertisements."United d  Food,163F.3dat346.Inthesecases,contrarytothemajority's `  assertions,theagency'scontroloverpublicissueadvertisingwas   notunlikethatexercisedbytheMBTAinpractice. h  ` InChrist'sBride,theSoutheasternPennsylvania d TransportationAuthority(SEPTA)wasdeemedadesignatedpublic  forumbecause,whileSEPTAasserteditsrighttorefuseadvertising l deemed"objectionableforanyreason,"SEPTAhadthe"practiceof h permittingvirtuallyunlimitedaccesstotheforum."148F.3dat  25152.TheThirdCircuitfoundthatinpractice"SEPTAhas p  exercisedcontroloveronlythreeads,twoofwhichhadgraphicsto !l" whichSEPTAobjected,andoneofwhichsolicitedpersonalinjury "$ casesthatcouldbedirectedagainstSEPTA."Id.at252. t$&  ` InUnitedFood,theSouthwestRegionalTransitAuthority  &p!( (SORTA)hadrejectedanadvertisementunderaprovisionofits '#* advertisingpolicythatprohibited"[a]dvertisingofcontroversial x)$, publicissuesthatmayadverselyaffectSORTA'sabilitytoattract $+t&. andmaintainridership."163F.3dat352.TheSixthCircuit  concludedthat"thelackofdefinitivestandardsguidingthe \ applicationofSORTA'sadvertisingpolicypermitsSORTA,like X SEPTA,torejectaproposedadvertisementdeemedobjectionablefor   anyreason."163F.3dat354.Underthesecircumstances,the `  transportationauthorities'contentionthattheadvertisingat  \  issuewasincompatiblewiththenatureoftheforumcreatedby   theiradvertisingspacescouldnotbesustained.TheSixth d  Circuit'sreasoningisinstructive: `  8 ` WealsofindthatSORTA'sstatedpurposefor   limitingadvertisingonbusesonlytenuously  related,atbest,tothegreaterforum's h intendeduse.Thisisnotasituationlike > thatinCornelius,wherethegovernment d establishedacontrolledsolicitationprocess : topreventdisruptionintheworkplace,or  [AETC],whereapublicbroadcastingsystem  logisticallycouldnotpossiblyaccommodate l allpoliticalcandidates,oreven[Perry], B whereahighschoolhadadirectinterestin h controllingaccesstoitsinternalmail > system.Herethereisnoestablishedcausal  linkbetweenSORTA'sgoalofenhancingthe  environmentforitsriders,enhancingSORTA's p  standinginthecommunity,andenablingSORTA F ! toattractandmaintainitsridership,andits !l" broadbaseddiscretiontoexclude !B# advertisementsthataretoocontroversialor "$ notaestheticallypleasing.Although #% politicalandpublicissuespeechisoften t$& contentious,itdoesnotfollowthatsuch J% ' speechwillnecessarilyfrustrateSORTA's  &p!( commercialinterests.Rather,itmaybethe &F") casethatonlyinrarecircumstanceswillthe '#* controversialnatureofsuchspeech (#+ sufficientlyinterferewiththeprovisionof x)$, Metrobusservicessoastowarrantexcluding N*%- apoliticalorpublicissueadvertisement.$+t&.` x` x  +J'/ 0?UnitedFood,163F.3dat354.   ` Admittedly,theMBTAhasnotopeneditsadvertisingspace \ toallpublicissueadvertisingexceptthatwhichitdeems X "objectionableforanyreason,"id.,buthasinsteadpromulgated   writtenadvertisingpoliciesandexercisedcontroloverahandful `  ofadvertisementsinthefiveyearspriortotheeventsatissue  \  here.Still,theincoherentwrittenpoliciesandtheoccasional,   subjectiveexerciseofcontrolareinsufficienttodemonstratean d  intentbytheMBTAtocloseitsadvertisingspaceasapublicforum `  whenitroutinelypostspublicissueadvertisementsonallmanner   ofsocialissues. h  ` Thus,theMBTA'spolicyandpracticeregardingits d advertisingspace,andthenatureofthatspaceascreatedand  managedbytheMBTA,demonstratesanintentbytheMBTAtocreate l adesignatedpublicforum. h  ` Finally,Imustnotethat,whilenotasidewalkorcity  park,theMBTA'sfacilitiesarethemodernanaloguetothese p  traditionalpublicfora.Asmentionedabove,2.5millionpeoplein !l" theGreaterBostonareausetheMBTA'sfacilities,andits170bus "$ andtrolleyroutes,4subwaylines,and13branchcommuterrail t$& networktransitatsomepointoftheirroutesthroughoracross  &p!( traditionalpublicfora.Inadditiontothecarcardsatissuein '#* thiscase,theMBTAallowsadvertisingontheoutsideofits x)$, vehicles,whichareobviouslydisplayedastheytransitthrough_ the $+t&. publicstreets.Someofthecarsonsomeofthesubwaylinesthat  travelabovegroundareevenpaintedinsuchawaythatthewhole \ exteriorofthecarconstitutes,ineffect,anadvertisement.The X MBTAalsoallowsadvertisingonthewallsofthenumerousbusand   trolleysheltersthatsitonthepublicsidewalksandcanbeseen `  fromthepublicthoroughfare.Thus,inadditiontothetraveling  \  public,theMBTA'sadvertisinginfluencereachesintothoseonthe   traditionalpublicforathestreetsandsidewalksofGreater d  Boston.Asstatedabove,thismeansthattheMBTAisinaposition `  tocontrol40,000advertisingspacesforthedisseminationof   informationtoalargesegmentoftheregion'spopulation.Itis h disquieting,tosaytheleast,thatthemajoritywouldallowthe d governmenttocontrolthecontentoftheinformationtowhichthe  publicisexposedthroughtheseadvertisingspaces.TheMBTA's l advertisingsystemisindeedapowerfultoolwithwhichto h influencepublicopinion,onewhichshouldbeopenedtothe  crucibleofcompetingviewpointstothelargestextentpossible. p  @,," III.Conclusion  !l"  ` AlthoughIconcurwiththemajority'sconclusionthatthe "4$ MBTAengagedinviewpointdiscriminationwhenitrejectedChange $& theClimate'sproposedadvertisements,Idissentfromitsfailure <&!( torecognizesimilardiscriminationwithregardtoRidley's '8#* advertisements.Ifurtherdissentfromthemajority'sdecisionto )$, engageinforumanalysis,andfromtheoutcomethereof.#NXCXXXC!q#XCXXNXC @+&. #NXCXXXCFV#XCXXNXC  Appendix  Tobeposted_ shortly._ V@*