utilitarian, not an expressive, purpose and do not incorporate artwork created by Plaintiffs”). This is not always an easy task, because there are “inherent line-drawing problems associated with distinguishing among artwork with presumptively expressive content (such as [paintings, photographs, prints, and sculptures]), merchandise with potentially expressive content (such as ‘the crafts of the jeweler, the potter and the silversmith’), and merchandise "with no expressive content.” Mastrovincenzo, 435 F.3d at 85 (quoting and citing Bery, 97 F.3d at 696). Moreover, some objects are otherwise utilitarian, but can become “inextricably intertwined” with “pure elements of speech” when they are sold to disseminate political, religious, or philosophical messages, Gaudiya, 952 F.2d at 1064-65 (<HOLDING>); see also One World, 76 F.3d at 1011-12
holding that limitations placed upon the religious activities of two prison groups found to be religious organizations were reasonable under the circumstances holding that religious and political groups sale of merchandise and literature was fully protected holding that exclusion of religious groups from universitys open forum policy violated the first amendment holding that the sale of music buttons and bumper stickers bearing political religious and ideological messages was fully protected by the first amendment holding that imputed political opinion is a protected ground