April 2010 - Parks & Recreation - 32

law review continued from page 29

the plaintiff's conception of freedom
of speech prevailed, every clerk
responsible for stocking such a
display rack would face a potential
First Amendment suit by an interest
group that wanted to influence
government action or public opinion.

Accordingly, in the opinion of the
court, " the effect of the position urged by
the plaintiff in this case would be: no more
display racks on public property; no more
home pages for public agencies " :
Must every public display rack exhibit
on demand pamphlets advocating

No " Stick Figures " here!

Indroducing a full line of Fun Forms™.
From Aqua Spouts™ to Sprayers & Slides, Fun Forms™ captures
the imaginations of toddlers to teens. Fountain People design
personnel work with Architects, Landscape Architects, Aquatic
Consultants, and end users around the world to develop new
innovative wet play environments and equipment.

Aqua Spouts™ * Aqua Sprayers™ * Aqua Slides™
Contact Us: 512.392.1155 | www.waterodyssey.com
Circle 16 on product information form on PAGE 71

30	 Parks & Recreation

APRIL 2010

w w w . NR P A . ORG

nudism, warning that the world will
end in 2012 (see Lawrence E. Joseph,
Apocalypse 2012: An Investigation
into Civilization's End (2007)), reciting
the " Seven Aphorisms of Summum "
(the title of the plaintiff's monument in
the Summum case), or proclaiming
the unconstitutionality of the income
tax, together with pamphlets
expressing the opposing view on all
these subjects? Or must the park on
request link its online home page to
every website of an organization or a
person who would like to express an
opinion on asbestos fibers or any
other topic that might relate to Illinois
Beach State Park?

In rejecting the Society's First Amendment claim, the federal appeals court further noted DNR's denial of rack space for
the Society's pamphlet had not " closed
off the only good avenue that the plaintiff
has for reaching the patrons of the state
park with its message. " On the contrary,
the Society could have applied for a permit to hand out pamphlets at the entrances to, or sites within, the park. According
to a park official, such a permit " was a
potential avenue for the Dunesland Society to access the park in a way that might
be able to get their message out. "
Without providing any details, the Society had contended that " a permit might
be difficult to obtain. " The court, however, noted that " no special permit or license is required to hand out pamphlets
to Park visitors. " More significantly, the
federal appeals court found the Society
" did not seek to distribute its flyer within
the Park by any means other than inclusion in the display racks. " Having found
no First Amendment right to require the
DNR to display Dunesland's pamphlet
in the Park's display racks, the federal
appeals court, therefore, affirmed the
summary judgment of the district court
dismissing the Society's claim.

James C. Kozlowski, J.D., Ph.D. , is an

associate professor in the School of
Recreation, Health, and Tourism at George
Mason University in Manassas, Virginia.
E-mail: jkozlows@gmu.edu. Webpage:
http://mason.gmu.edu/~jkozlows
April 2010 - Parks & Recreation

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of April 2010 - Parks & Recreation
