it does no more than reserve eligibility for access to the forum to a particular class of speakers, whose members must then, as individuals, obtain permission to use it” (internal quotation marks omitted, emphasis added) (quoting Cornelius, 473 U.S. at 804, 105 S.Ct. 3439)); Perry Educ. Ass’n, 460 U.S. at 47, 103 S.Ct. 948, 74 L.Ed.2d 794 (1983) (explaining that an internal school mail system had not been opened for “indiscriminate use by the general public” — and therefore was not a public forum — where permission had to be sought from principal before using it). Finally, when we examine “the nature of the property and its compatibility with expressive activity to discern the government’s intent,” Cornelius, 473 U.S. at 802, 105 S.Ct. 3439 olcomb, 129 F.Supp.2d 941, 948 (W.D.Va.2001) (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, we agree with defendants that a
recognizing that government is not required to retain open nature of designated public forum holding that a vanity plate is not a public forum holding that a state statute authorizing the rejection of vanity plates deemed contrary to public policy violated the first amendment because it granted unfettered discretion to state officials holding that a vanity plate is a designated public forum where a state allows groups to place various slogans and designs on license plates 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