It seems to me that the outsides of people's doors in a dorm are
likely designated public fora: The school appears to have authorized
students to post their own speech on their doors, and appears to continue
authorizing this, but limits this to certain kinds of speech. As I
understand it, that's more or less the norm at American universities, and
I'd guess -- though I realize that I don't have all the facts here -- that
it's the norm at the University of Alabama.
If that's so, then it seems to me impermissible for the government
to define its designation in terms that are as vague, as open to enforcement
discretion, and as likely to be applied in viewpoint-based ways as "no
harassing materials." That seems to me to be so even in designated public
fora, and not just traditional public fora.
Naturally, if I'm mistaken on the facts, and it turns out (for
instance) that the doors are *not* generally open to student speech, but are
used by the government itself to express its own message, then the
government would have much broader power (see, e.g., Forbes v. Arkansas
Educational Television). But that just doesn't seem to me to be the most
likely factual situation.
Eugene
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mark Tushnet [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2003 11:07 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Proposed dorm speech code at the University of Alabama
>
>
> It's worth noting that the policy remains in draft form. One
> might imagine different provisions for spaces interior to
> residents' rooms, and those exposed to the public such as the
> exteriors of doors. I think much would turn on precisely
> what the policy covers. But, I would think that there's no
> serious problem with pretty restrictive regulations of things
> like the walls in common hallways (unless they are
> conceptualized, somehow, as public fora -- which seems to me
> would be pretty hard to do given the current Court's
> unwillingness to expand the scope of the "traditional" public
> forum from streets and parks). To the extent that the walls
> of the common areas are used to post official announcements
> and announcements of public events, again one would need to
> know the precise contours of the policy to know whether such
> postings had converted the areas into limited public fora.
> In short, I find it hard to react to the story without more
> detail about what policies are actually in place.
>
