nature of the speech or the identity of the speaker and the functioning of the nonpublic forum is not mandated.” 473 U.S. at 808, 105 S.Ct. at 3452 (citing cases). In a nonpublic forum, an evaluation of the reasonableness of the restriction of access “must be assessed in the light of the purpose of the forum and all the surrounding circumstances.” Id. at 809, 105 S.Ct. at 3452. Concerning the “viewpoint neutrality” prong, Cornelius stated the rule for a nonpublic forum as well: [T]he government violates the First Amendment when it denies access to a speaker solely to suppress the point of view he espouses on an otherwise includible subject. Id. at 806, 105 S.Ct. at 3451. Subsequent Supreme Court decisions have followed this analysis. See Lamb’s Chapel, — U.S. at —, 113 S.Ct. at 2147 (<HOLDING>); R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, 505 U.S. 377,
holding that speech about financial assistance and handling racial discrimination does not qualify as protected speech holding that first amendment protections apply to compelled speech as well as restrictions on speech holding that free speech clause precludes state university that pays student publications printing costs from denying funding based on publications religious viewpoint holding unconstitutional a rule excluding all religious speech as viewpoint discrimination holding the right of free speech is not absolute at all times and under all circumstances