v. Vill. of Oak Park, 267 F.3d 558, 565 (7th Cir.2001) (internal citations omitted). “ ‘[P]ublic places’ historically associated with the free exercise of expressive activities, such as streets, sidewalks, and parks, are considered, without more, to be ‘public forums.’” Grace, 461 U.S. at 177, 103 S.Ct. 1702. “A designated public forum, in contrast, is a forum created by the government, not through inaction dr by permitting limited discourse, but only by intentionally opening a nontraditional public forum for public discourse.” DeBoer, 267 F.3d at 566 (internal citations omitted). In determining whether a space is a designated public forum,, the 997) (“A courthouse — and} especially, a courtroom — is a nonpublic forum.”); United States v. Gilbert, 920 F.2d 878, 884 (11th Cir.1991) (<HOLDING>). On the other hand, public parks, such as Clas
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 the courthouse lobby was a nonpublic forum recognizing that government is not required to retain open nature of designated public forum 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 holding that a courthouse was a nonpublic forum but an unenclosed courthouse plaza was a designated public forum