With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". the government may not alter by fiat what is indisputably a traditional public forum. See, e.g., Grace, 461 U.S. at 180, 103 S.Ct. 1702 (sidewalks surrounding Supreme Court); Henderson, 964 F.2d at 1182-83 (sidewalks surrounding Vietnam Veterans Memorial); see also Frisby v. Schultz, 487 U.S. 474, 480-81, 108 S.Ct. 2495, 101 L.Ed.2d 420 (1988) (residential streets); Gerritsen v. City of Los Angeles, 994 F.2d 570, 576 (9th Cir.) (merchant's street and sidewalks surrounding consulate), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 915, 114 S.Ct. 306, 126 L.Ed.2d 253 (1993). Similarly, we have held that the government cannot evade strict scrutiny by invoking a policy of limiting expression on property historically opened for expressive activity. See Paulsen v. County of Nassau, 925 F.2d 65, 70 (2d Cir.1991) (<HOLDING>). Here, the Plaza has not historically been

A: 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
B: holding that the fact that a speech regulation is now being enforced  is not enough to convert the property into a nonpublic forum
C: holding since the sidewalk is a nonpublic forum the regulation must be reasonable and not an effort to suppress expression merely because public officials oppose the speakers view
D: recognizing that code is speech
B.