recording and would have chilled a person of ordinary firmness from continuing to film. As an initial matter, an airport is a nonpublic forum, where restrictions on expressive activity need only “satisfy a requirement of reasonableness.” Int'l Soc’y for Krishna Consciousness v. Lee, 505 U.S. 672, 683, 112 S.Ct. 2701, 120 L.Ed.2d 541 (1992). Mocek argues that forum analysis and time, place; and man ner analysis do not apply in determining whether his conduct was “protected speech” for purposes of a retaliation claim, such that any government conduct intended to stop activity that is sometimes protected by the First Amendment is unconstitutional retaliation. But most other circuits have applied forum and time, place, and manner analyses to retaliation claims. See Gericke, 753 F.3d at 7-8 (<HOLDING>); Dean v. Byerley, 354 F.3d 540, 552 (6th
holding that a constructive trust is imposed in order to prevent injustice and that such a trust may be imposed when the circumstances show that it would be inequitable for the holder of legal title to retain the property holding that an officers reasonable mistake of law can give rise to the reasonable suspicion necessary to justify a traffic stop under the fourth amendment holding that comparatively nonthreatening character of detentions associated with ordinary traffic stops explains the absence of any suggestion in our opinions that terry stops are subject to the dictates of miranda  holding that reasonable suspicion standard applies to routine traffic stops holding for purposes of a retaliation claim reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right to film may be imposed when the circumstances justify them including the circumstances of some traffic stops