peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” Article 40 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights provides: "That the liberty of the press ought to be inviolably preserved; that every citizen of the State ought to be allowed to speak, write and publish his sentiments on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of that privilege.” The Maryland Court of Appeals has held that courts ordinarily “need not consider Article 40 and the First Amendment separately as Article 40 is read generally in pari materia with the First Amendment.” Nefedro v. Montgomery County, 414 Md. 585, 593 n. 5, 996 A.2d 850, 855 n. 5 (2010). Plaintiff does not assert that the protection under Article 40 exceeds that of the First Ame Auth., 150 F.3d 695, 702 (7th Cir.1998) (<HOLDING>). However, the tourist areas in those cases had
holding that the venice beach boardwalk is a traditional public forum holding that bostons fish pier is not a traditional public forum 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 san franciscos fishermans wharf is a traditional public forum holding that chicagos navy pier is not a traditional public forum