720, 110 S.Ct. 3115, 111 L.Ed.2d 571 (1990). The Kokinda Court found that the regulation at issue was content-neutral, even though it banned solicitation for funds while allowing other forms of First Amendment activity, such as leafleting, to proceed unrestricted. Id. at 736, 110 S.Ct. 3115. Kokinda is inapposite for various reasons. A bulk of the Kokinda opinion addresses whether the sidewalk in question was a public forum. The Supreme Court found that since the sidewalk was located on Postal Service property, the regulation must be analyzed under the standards set forth for nonpublic fora. Id. at 730, 110 S.Ct. 3115. This standard is distinct from that applied in this case, where canvassers spend the majority of time on public streets. Compare Kokinda, 497 U.S. at 730, 110 S.Ct. 3115 (<HOLDING>) (internal quotation marks and citation
holding that school officials could prevent a student from distributing invitations in a public elementary school a nonpublic forum because the restraint was reasonable holding that a courthouse was a nonpublic forum but an unenclosed courthouse plaza was a designated public forum holding that the fact that a speech regulation is now being enforced  is not enough to convert the property into a nonpublic forum holding since the sidewalk is a nonpublic forum the regulation must be reasonable and not an effort to suppress expression merely because public officials oppose the speakers view holding that the courthouse lobby was a nonpublic forum