for instance, is not the so-called “cuteness” of the word “pooper,” but the fact that “shit” is a profanity. That is why the DMV considers the latter • offensive. 3. Prior restraint Perry makes the additional argument that the DMV’ d by “selective access,” Arkansas Educ. Television Comm’n v. Forbes, 523 U.S. 666, 679, 118 S.Ct. 1633, 140 L.Ed.2d 875 (1998), which necessarily means that the state can select or limit who may speak and what may be said prior to its expression as long as the restrictions meet the requirements of reasonableness and viewpoint-neutrality. Accordingly, a restriction on expression which would otherwise be deemed a prior restraint if it had been applied in a public forum is valid in a nonpublic forum as long as it is reasonable and viewpoint-neutral. See id. (<HOLDING>); Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier, 484 U.S. 260, 108
holding that a federal charity drive a nonpublic forum could limit participation to a number of select charities as long as the restriction was reasonable and viewpointneutral 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 although the state regulated and subsidized the nursing homes private parties not state officials made the administrative decisions therefore the decisions could not be treated as state action holding that a statesponsored televised election debate was a nonpublic forum and state officials could exercise broad editorial discretion in deciding which candidates to invite as long as the decisions were reasonable and viewpointneutral holding that the courthouse lobby was a nonpublic forum