| Venue: | Ct. App. 9th cir. |
| Facts: | Seattle publishes a pamphlet allowing voters to meet the candidates, but candidates are not allowed to discuss the opponent. Cogswell talks about McIver, his opponent. |
| Posture: | District court finds for plaintiff. |
| Issue: | Is this an unconstitutional restriction, given that the pamphlet is a limited public forum? |
| Holding: | No. Reversed. |
| Rule: | In a limited public forum, the restriction only violates 1A if it is unreasonable. A state can restrict access to a limited public forum as long as this is done reasonably, and the restriction doesn't discriminate against speakers based on their viewpoint. |
| Reasoning: | The government may not regulate speech based on its content, but it can exclude speech outside the scope of the forum hosting it. A non-public forum by definition is not dedicated to general debate. |
| Dicta: | |