The legal perspective on public space continues to develop as
cases arise that challenge or seek to clarify the legal status of
specific sites. For example, a 1990 case found that because the
US Post Office is run like a business, sidewalks leading to its
premises do not constitute a traditional public forum and thus
are closed to free expression (United States v. Kokinda, 497 US
720). A 1994 case concerning the rights of anti-abortion
protesters (Madsen v. Women’s Health Center, 114 S. Ct. 2516)
spurred the passing of ‘bubble laws’ by many state and local
jurisdictions that defined free speech zones within which
expressive activity would be permitted. In some cases, rights of
assembly and expression in public spaces require permits to be
secured from local authorities; this has been met with scepticism
because it places the legal status of such sites in the hands of
those bearing guns and handcuffs (McCarthy and McPhail,
2006; Zick, 2006). Most recently, emerging technologies have
raised new legal concerns about public space, including whether
the proliferation of surveillance cameras in such places abridges
privacy rights or the fourth amendment protection from
unreasonable searches and seizures (Blitz, 2004).