Rosenberger Outline

Here is how to think about Rosenberger:

I. Is this a forum case or a funding case? In other words, is this case like Widmar/Good News, or does it concern a mere policy decision by the government about how to spend its money? In still other words, can a pool of money be thought of as a metaphysical forum designed to facilitate free speech by private speakers, or does this program have little or nothing to do with free speech? Suppose the state funded all student journals except those that manifested support for gay rights or abortion rights. Would your answer be the same?

II. If this case does concern some kind of forum for free speech, is the restriction here one that is based upon content (subject matter) or viewpoint? Wide Awake was denied funding because it "primarily promotes or manifests a particular belief in or about a deity or an ultimate reality." Is that a viewpoint restriction or a content (subject matter)  restriction? Were the subjects of Wide Awake's articles (homosexuality, racism, crisis pregnancy, eating disorders, music reviews, etc) ones that other funded student journals could write about? If so, then why was funding withheld from Wide Awake?

III. Assuming that strict scrutiny is triggered by the above analysis, does the EC provide a compelling justification for the free speech restriction? In other words, does the EC forbid UVA from including Wide Awake in a program designed to reimburse student journals printing expenses?