No. of Recommendations: 5
I know the feds can't do that, and I believe the reconstruction amendments made it so that the states can't do it either (if albaby is still here, he may scold me if I'm in error). I expect a SCOTUS challenge if those "rule changes" are enforced.
No scolding - that's generally right.
What the state seems to be trying to do is convert the Capitol building from a limited public forum to a forum for solely government speech. Y'see, First Amendment protections available to speakers in a particular public space depend a great deal on how the government has designated that space to be used (either directly or through tradition). In SCOTUS jargon, a public space can be a public forum, a limited public forum, or a nonpublic forum.
Public fora are your "classic" places where anyone can say anything out to the outer limits of the First Amendment. The soapbox in the corner of the public park, or the sidewalk. Government cannot limit your ability to say anything you want based on either content or viewpoint. Some are created by tradition (and can't be changed), but the government can create and designate public fora as well - if they open up a room in a community center for anyone to use, then they can't discriminate based on content or viewpoint.
At the other end of the spectrum are nonpublic fora, like military bases or prisons. These are government facilities, but they are **not** places where the government is making those spaces available for speech. Government can - and does - severely limit the ability of individuals to speak in those places. In many instances, the government is the only entity that is allowed to use those areas for speech.
Florida knows that it can't censor a public forum or limited public forum based on viewpoint. What it can do is prohibit any private parties from using a particular area for their own speech, and instead limit the area for the government's own speech. If the Capitol building is no longer available for private parties, but only state agencies, then a different analysis of free speech will apply.
Albaby
