nature in the Plaza, it may be argued that the City has created a limited public forum. Indeed, that is the conclusion reached by both District Judges in the proceedings below. In general, a limited public forum is created when the government opens a nonpublic forum for public expression, but limits expressive activity to certain kinds of speakers or the discussion of particular subjects. See Travis v. Owego-Apalachin Sch. Dist. 927 F.2d 688, 692 (2d Cir.1991). However, as the Supreme Court has noted, “[a] [limit]ed public forum is not created when the government allows selective access for individual speakers rather than general access for a class of speakers.” Forbes, 523 U.S. at 679, 118 S.Ct. 1633; see also Fighting Finest, Inc. v. Bratton, 95 F.3d 224, 230 (2d Cir.1996) (<HOLDING>). There is scant evidence in the record
holding that in analyzing whether a limited public forum has been created we consider the nature of the property or means of communication the governments purpose in permitting whatever limited access it has allowed and the conditions of access eg whether permission is required holding that a plaintiff has no absolute unconditional right of access to the courts and no constitutional right of access to prosecute frivolous or malicious actions holding that a schools internal mail system was not a public forum because users needed a principals permission for access holding that reasonable access includes general facility access without notice and patient access with twentyfour hour notice holding that where by virtue of state action access is limited but remains reasonable there is no such denial of access as entitles the landowner to compensation