Designated Public Forum - [From Cornelius v. NAACP Legal Defense & Ed. Fund, Inc., 473 U. S. 788, 802 (1985)] a public forum may be created by government designation of a place or channel of communication for use by the public at large for assembly and speech, for use by certain speakers, or for the discussion of certain subjects. (Perry Education Assn., supra, at 45 and 46, n. 7.) Of course, the government "is not required to indefinitely retain the open character of the facility." Id., at 46.

Plurality opinion - a decision of the court in which there is no controlling reasoning in deciding the case but in which a majority of the judges agree or concur with the judgment. Examples of cases decided by a plurality opinion include Board of Education v. Pico and U.S. v. ALA.

Strict Judicial Scrutiny - [From The 'Lectric Law Library's Lexicon] Not every governmental regulation implicating First Amendment or other fundamental rights is subject to strict judicial scrutiny. On the contrary, "[i]t is only when there exists a real and appreciable impact on, or a significant interference with the exercise of the fundamental right that the strict scrutiny doctrine will be applied. [Citations.]" (Fair Political Practices Com. v. Superior Court (1979) 25 Cal.3d 33, 47.) "When the regulation merely has an incidental effect on the exercise of protected rights," the First Amendment is not implicated and the regulation need only be reasonable. (Ibid.; Zablocki v. Redhail (1978) 434 U.S. 374, 386-387 [54 L.Ed.2d 618, 631]; Gould v. Grubb (1975) 14 Cal.3d 661, 670.) In order to satisfy strict scrutiny, a law must be neither vague nor substantially over- or underinclusive. (See Schad v. Mount Ephraim (1981) 452 U.S. 61, 71-74 [68 L.Ed.2d 671, 682-684]; City of Indio v. Arroyo (1983) 143 Cal.App.3d 151, 157.) It must further an overriding state interest yet be drawn with narrow specificity to avoid any unnecessary intrusion on First Amendment rights. (McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Com., supra, 514 U.S. at p. ___ [131 L.Ed.2d at p. 440]; H-CHH Associates v. Citizens for Representative Government (1987) 193 Cal.App.3d 1193, 1207.)

Summary judgment - [From The 'Lectric Law Library's Lexicon] A decision made on the basis of statements and evidence presented for the record without a trial. It is used when there is no dispute as to the facts of the case, and one party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Traditional or Quintessential Public Forum - [From Cornelius v. NAACP Legal Defense & Ed. Fund, Inc., 473 U. S. 788, 802 (1985)] are those places which "by long tradition or by government fiat have been devoted to assembly and debate." 460 U.S., at 45 . Public streets and parks fall into this category. See Hague v. CIO, 307 U.S. 496, 515 (1939).