alleged by Hershey in which an outsider sought to leaflet there led to a similar exclusion. Hershey alleges that a fellow Vegan Outreach colleague was told by a campus safety officer that she needed permission to leaflet on the same walkway — a statement which itself presupposes a Lehman policy in which such speech by outsiders was subject to restriction. Like Hershey, was ultimately denied such permission. Am. Compl. ¶¶ 125-127. Hershey does not, in fact, identify any instance in which a campus outsider has ever been allowed to leaflet anywhere on Lehman’s grounds. Hershey therefore does not allege facts sufficient to support his claim that the Lehman campus in general, or the walkway in particular, was a traditional or designated public forum. See, e.g., Blanchard, 477 F.3d at 472 (<HOLDING>). Lehman’s campus and walkway are thus not
holding that a courthouse was a nonpublic forum but an unenclosed courthouse plaza was a designated public forum holding a college library lawn was not a designated public forum for expressive activity where the court was given no instance of an outsiders being permitted to do more than stroll on the lawn recognizing that government is not required to retain open nature of designated public forum holding that a public high school newspaper was a limited public forum not a traditional or designated public forum because there was no evidence that the school permitted indiscriminate use by the general public quoting hazelwood sch dist v kuhlmeier 484 us 260 267 108 sct 562 98 led2d 592 1988 holding that a permissive forum selection clause containing a waiver of any claims of forum non conveniens amounts to a mandatory forum selection clause at least where the plaintiff chose the designated forum