covenant in this case, in declaring that parks in general are public forums. See id. Wright also relies heavily on inapposite .3d 959, 966 (9th Cir.2002) (considering the traditional restrictions on use of and access to a government complex containing public offices and courtrooms in finding that the complex was a nonpublic forum). This is also not a case in which the government has attempted to destroy o have a First Amendment right to access private property for expression. See Hudgens v. NLRB, 424 U.S. 507, 520-21, 96 S.Ct. 1029, 47 L.Ed.2d 196 (1976) (concluding that picketers do not have a First Amendment right to enter a privately-owned shopping center to advertise their strike against a company); Lloyd Corp. v. Tanner, 407 U.S. 551, 556, 570, 92 S.Ct. 2219, 33 L.Ed.2d 131 (1972) (<HOLDING>). Requiring private property owners to allow
holding that respondents who sought to distribute handbill invitations to a meeting to protest the draft and the vietnam war had no right to do so at a privately owned and operated shopping center recognizing right to privately retained counsel holding that a defendant who sought to receive the death penalty had the right to refuse to present mitigation evidence holding that the protest statutes use of the word cumulative means the statute is in addition to the existing right of reimbursement for taxes wrongfully demanded not intended to destroy that legal right holding that son who lived on land entirely by virtue of his mothers consent owned no estate to which the homestead right could attach and that the homestead right cannot be based on so precarious a tenure as the sons occupancy at the will of his mother