ABSTRACT
Advocates of broad protections for speech and assembly in the public forum often emphasize its place in ensuring the proper functioning of a democratic system. Along more traditional lines, advocates have sought to include specific-use public lands as military bases, schools, courthouses, and prison properties in the public forum. In Hague and Elizabeth M. Schneider, the Court declared that the historical right of citizens to use public spaces to discuss and debate public issues limited the state's rights as a property owner. Although originally thought of exclusively in terms of publicly owned and operated property, there have been attempts to extend the public forum to include privately owned property. The final contested area of the public-forum doctrine relates to the question of what property is included in the public forum. Although originally thought of exclusively in terms of publicly owned and operated property, there have been attempts to extend the public forum to include privately owned property.
