Cir.1998). Third, expressive activity on Vermont’s vanity plates is subject to numerous restrictions, including limitations on the number of letters that may appear on a vanity plate and on how many numbers may be used in combination with letters. Furthermore, Vt. Stat. ANN. tit. 23, § 304(d) permits the Commissioner to “refuse to honor any request” for a special plate deemed “offensive or confusing to the general public.” At the time of Perry’s application, the DMV exercised its authority to prohibit offensive vanity plates in part through an unwritten policy of denying requests for plates bearing sea- tological terms. Such extensive government regulation of expressive activity does not suggest an intent to designate a public forum. See Cornelius, 473 U.S. at 804-05, 105 S.Ct. 3439 (<HOLDING>). Fourth, the general public does not have
holding that a charity drive aimed at employees in the federal workplace was a nonpublic forum because inter alia the literature each could distribute was limited to a 30 word statement holding that in employees age discrimination suit against former employer supervisors statement to employee was not hearsay even though the statement was offered for its truth because the statement was an admission by a party opponent holding that an arbitration agreement was invalid because inter alia the employer could modify the rules at any time without notice holding that inter alia employees criminal conviction for alleged tortious act demonstrated employee was not acting in scope of his employment holding inter alia that common law claims were preempted