have been open and used for expressive activity. Viewed in its totality, the subject median cannot be a place intended for bringing citizens together to exchange ideas, which, of course, is at the core of the “public forum” designation. A traditional public forum is a public place where, by long history, the public has gathered to speak, debate, and exchange ideas. See Perry Educ. Ass’n, 460 U.S. at 45, 103 S.Ct. at 954. It is those “ ‘[pjublie places’ historically associated with free exercise of expressive activities, such as streets, sidewalks and parks, that are considered, without more, to be 'public forums.’ ” United States v. Grace, 461 U.S. 171, 177, 103 S.Ct. 1702, 1707, 75 L.Ed.2d 736 (1983); see also Frisby v. Schultz, 487 U.S. 474, 108 S.Ct. 2495, 101 L.Ed.2d 420 (1988) (<HOLDING>). Such places are considered traditional public
recognizing criticisms of public officials is at core of speech protected by first amendment holding that issues of prison security public safety and official corruption are matters of public concern holding in the context of picketing on a matter of public concern that residential streets are traditional public fora uninhibited robust and wideopen debate on public issues strikes at the core of the first amendment id at 479 108 sct at 2499 holding that a public employees internal memoranda raising concerns about public corruption are protected first amendment speech because they addressed a matter of public concern recognizing a public employees first amendment right to address matters of legitimate public concern