at 339-40. See also Christian Knights of the KKK v. District of Columbia, 751 F.Supp. 218, 223 (D.D.C.1990); Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Movement, Inc. v. City of Chicago, 419 F.Supp. 667, 674 (N.D.Ill.1976) (plaintiffs desired to march through white neighborhood to convey message; denied ample alternatives where Chicago re-routed march to black neighborhood). 97 . Cpt. ¶ 26. 98 . Indeed, defendants assert in their papers that the event cannot be held in Harlem or any Manhattan neighborhood. Def. Mem. at 14. 99 . 512 U.S. at 56, 114 S.Ct. 2038 (noting that placing a sign in one's residence conveys a meaning at times unique from the same sign place elsewhere). 100 . at 192-93 (“location may be an essential part of the message sought to be conveyed”); cf. Women Strike, 472 F.2d at 1287
recognizing significance of employers history of  8 violations holding that burden of demonstrating coverage rests with the insured recognizing the significance of control in strict products liability recognizing unmistakable symbolic significance of demonstrating in proximity to the seat of government holding that an appellant bears the burden of demonstrating error on appeal