Natl Endowment for the Arts v. Finley, 524 U.S. 569, 602, 118 S.Ct. 2168, 141 L.Ed.2d 500 (1998). Plaintiffs public performance of painting, and his paintings themselves, are clearly protected speech under the First Amendment, and Ocean City does not argue otherwise. See, e.g., Hurley v. Irish-American Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual Group of Boston, Inc., 515 U.S. 557, 569, 115 S.Ct. 2338, 132 L.Ed.2d 487 (1995) (remarking that even the abstract paintings of Jackson Pollock are “unquestionably shielded” by the First Amendment); IOTA XI Chapter of Sigma Chi Fraternity v. George Mason Univ., 993 F.2d 386, 389 (4th Cir.1993) (“First Amendment principles governing live entertainment are relatively clear: short of obscenity, it is generally protected.”). o, 952 F.2d 1059, 1061-65 (9th Cir.1990) (<HOLDING>), cert. denied, 504 U.S. 914, 112 S.Ct. 1951,
recognizing that where plaintiff is from the forum state and defendant is from an alternate forum each forum can claim a connection to one of the parties holding that bostons fish pier is not a traditional public forum holding that san franciscos fishermans wharf is a traditional public forum holding that chicagos navy pier is not a traditional public forum holding that the venice beach boardwalk is a traditional public forum