absent the regulation.” Id., citing United States v. Albertini, 472 U.S. 675, 689, 105 S.Ct. 2897, 86 L.Ed.2d 536 (1985). The validity of time, place, or manner regulations does not turn on a judge’s agreement with the responsible decisionmaker concerning the most appropriate method for promoting “significant government interests” or the degree to which those interests should be promoted. Id. “So long as the means chosen are not substantially broader than necessary to achieve the gov ernment’s interest, however, the regulation will not be invalid simply because a court concludes that the government’s interest could be adequately served by some less ... restrictive alternative.” Ward, 491 U.S. at 800, 109 S.Ct. 2746; see also United States v. Hastings, 695 F.2d 1278 (11th Cir.) (<HOLDING>), cert. denied, 461 U.S. 931, 103 S.Ct. 2094,
holding that it is not holding that a constitutional challenge to a statute is not properly preserved for appellate review if as here it is not presented to the trial court and is raised for the first time on appeal holding a 12b5 defense is waived if it is not made in a rule 12 motion or if it is not included in a responsive pleading holding that a time place and manner restriction of right of access of the press to observe criminal trials is constitutional if it is reasonable if it promotes significant governmental interests and if it does not unwarrantedly abridge opportunities for communication of thought holding that an award may be in excess of the arbitrators powers if it requires the public employer to perform an act that is prohibited by law or if it does not involve legitimate terms and conditions of employment