With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". and facially neutral and there is no allegation that it has any discriminatory effect.” Br. of Appellees 36. Additionally, the City maintains that the Ordinance is consistent with the purpose and plain language of the Consent Decree. A. 1. In assessing a First Amendment claim relating to private speech on government property, we must first identify the nature of the forum at issue — here, the City’s flag standards affixed to its light posts. See Capitol Square Review & Advisory Bd. v. Pinette, 515 U.S. 753, 761, 115 S.Ct. 2440, 132 L.Ed.2d 650 (1995) (explaining that “[t]he right to use government property for one’s private expression depends upon” the nature of the property); Int’l Soc’y for Krishna Consciousness, Inc. v. Lee, 505 U.S. 672, 678, 112 S.Ct. 2701, 120 L.Ed.2d 541 (1992) (<HOLDING>). As our Court has recognized, “[i]n deciding

A: recognizing forum based approach to assessing speech restrictions that government places on its property
B: recognizing that code is speech
C: holding mexico to be available and adequate forum after rejecting arguments that forum was inadequate due to restrictions on discovery and damages
D: holding that first amendment protections apply to compelled speech as well as restrictions on speech
A.