the fact that plaintiff sells his paintings, or receives compensation for performing, does not remove his artistic expression from the ambit of the First Amendment. The “degree of First Amendment protection is not diminished merely because the ... speech is sold rather than given away.” City of Lakewood v. Plain Dealer Pub. Co., 486 U.S. 750, 756 n. 5, 108 S.Ct. 2138, 100 L.Ed.2d 771 (1988); see also Riley v. Nat’l Fed’n of the Blind, 487 U.S. 781, 801, 108 S.Ct. 2667, 101 L.Ed.2d 669 (1988) (“It is well settled that a speaker’s rights are not lost merely because compensation is received; a speaker is no less a speaker because he or she is paid to speak.”). For the purpose of analyzing restrict 7 L.Ed.2d 897 (2004); Warren v. Fairfax County, 196 F.3d 186, 189-90 (4th Cir.1999) (<HOLDING>); Gaudiya Vaishnava Soc’y v. City of San
holding that an enclosed forecourt to a performing arts center is a nonpublic forum holding that the center island mall in front of the fairfax county government center complex is a traditional public forum holding that chicagos navy pier is not a traditional public forum holding that bostons fish pier is not a traditional public forum holding that the venice beach boardwalk is a traditional public forum