a prior restraint on expression must also contain certain procedural safeguards as set forth in Freedman v. Maryland, 380 U.S. 51, 59, 85 S.Ct. 734, 739, 13 L.Ed.2d 649 (1965). See Forsyth County v. Nationalist Movement, 505 U.S. 123, 130, 112 S.Ct. 2395, 2401, 120 L.Ed.2d 101 (1992); Lady J. Lingerie, 176 F.3d at 1364-65. Because we conclude that section 2.51 lacks one of the procedural safeguards required under. Freedman, we do not address whether the regulation is a permissible time, place, or manner restriction. B. IS 36 C.F.R. § 2.51 an, J., concurring) (agreeing with the plurality opinion’s requirement of the first two Freedman safeguards); Riley v. National Federation of the Blind of N.C., Inc., 487 U.S. 781, 802 & n. 14, 108 S.Ct. 2667, 2680-81 & n. 14, 101 L.Ed.2d 669 (1988) (<HOLDING>). In FW/PBS, the Supreme Court explained that
holding that possession of a drivers license is irrelevant to the offense of failing to present a license which is completed by failing to present the license when requested to do so by an officer holding that a contentneutral law requiring professional fundraisers to obtain a license before soliciting donations was subject to the procedural safeguards of freedman holding contentneutral licensing scheme was an unconstitutional prior restraint because it violated the second freedman safeguard  adequate limits on the time that the decisionmaker has to issue the license holding that where a licensing scheme is facially invalid for lack of procedural safeguards or unbridled discretion a person faced with such an unconstitutional licensing law may ignore it and engage with impunity in the exercise of the right of free expression for which the law purports to require a license holding that under alabama law the law of the forum applies to procedural matters and that in most instances the statute of limitations is considered to be a procedural rule