Rosenberger, 515 U.S. at 833, 115 S.Ct. 2510. For example, the First Amendment does not bar the government from “mak[ing] a value judgment favoring childbirth over abortion,” Rust, 500 U.S. at 192-92, 111 S.Ct. 1759 (internal quotations and citations omitted), or from implementing that judgment by “refusing to fund activities, including speech,” which relate to abortion. Id. at 194-95, 111 S.Ct. 1759. Similarly, “[a]n arm of local government ... may decide not only to talk about gay and lesbian awareness and tolerance in general, but also to advocate such tolerance if it so decides, and restrict the contrary speech of one of its representatives” by refusing to incorporate that speech into its own presentation. Downs, 228 F.3d at 1014; see also Knights of the KKK, 203 F.3d at 1094-95 (<HOLDING>). Upon consideration, we conclude that the City
recognizing admissibility of eeoc reasonable cause determination but declining to adopt per se rule of admissibility holding that constructive amendments which are per se reversible under harmless error analysis are also per se reversible under plain error analysis holding that governmentowned radio station may control the contents of its own speech but declining to decide whether governmental speech that is not editorial in nature is per se exempt from forum analysis holding that per se statutory rule is not permissible under fourth amendment holding that the contents of a notebook were not protected speech based in part on the fact that appellant made no effort to communicate the contents of the notebook to the public