context: The Union argues first that the Plaza has been expressly designated by the city as a public park. Assuming this is so, the Union reasons, the Plaza would automatically warrant traditional public forum status.
citation_a.signal: see
citation_a.identifier: 691 F.2d 160, 160
citation_a.parenthetical: "Streets, parks and sidewalks are the paradigms of a public, forum .:.."
citation_a.sentence: See, e.g., N.J. Sports, 691 F.2d at 160 (“Streets, parks and sidewalks are the paradigms of a public, forum .:..”); cf. Members of City Council v. Taxpayers for Vincent, 466 U.S. 789, 814, 104 S.Ct. 2118, 80 L.Ed.2d 772 (1984) (noting that public streets and parks enjoy “a traditional right of access”). We express no opinion on whether a dedicated public park must necessarily qualify as a traditional public forum, without regard to the context of its location and use.
citation_b.signal: cf.
citation_b.parenthetical: noting that public streets and parks enjoy "a traditional right of access"
citation_b.sentence: See, e.g., N.J. Sports, 691 F.2d at 160 (“Streets, parks and sidewalks are the paradigms of a public, forum .:..”); cf. Members of City Council v. Taxpayers for Vincent, 466 U.S. 789, 814, 104 S.Ct. 2118, 80 L.Ed.2d 772 (1984) (noting that public streets and parks enjoy “a traditional right of access”). We express no opinion on whether a dedicated public park must necessarily qualify as a traditional public forum, without regard to the context of its location and use.