Talk:Forum (legal)

inaccurate title

this article should be renamed Public Forum, and the forum disambiguation page should reflect that. in a US legal context, forum is more frequently used to signify venue- that is, the particular jurisdiction in which a plaintiff may bring suit. see, e.g. wikipedia "venue (law)"; "Forum selection clause." Public forum as a legal concept is really only implicated in a few First Amendment analyses. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.81.195.149 (talk) 20:07, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Plural

Isn't the proper plural of forum "fora"? I am of the opinion it should be changed on this page; however, I would like to know what others think.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.58.240.104 (talk • contribs)

Can be either "forums" or "fora" ([1]). There's arguments for both usages ([2]). What do you think? Λυδαcιτγ 23:13, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

The consistency argument advocated by the second link isn't as compelling, I believe. The fact that words taken from other languages are not always pluralized in the same manner doesn't really mean much in light of the numerous exceptions in American English. Given that American English is devoid of a governing body, it doesn't seem reasonable to expect pluralization rules to be consistent across the vast spectrum of languages that English words are taken from.

I would say that "fora" should be used for an aesthetic reason. In addition, retaining the plural form of the mother language seems reasonable unless it is burdensome. Opinions? --Swattie 03:59, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I found a similar discussion at Talk:Internet forum#Plural of forum. By my reading, the consensus was that although the use of "fora" should be noted when appropriate, the encyclopedia entry should use the common usage, "forums" ("in a constructive encyclopaedic entry the 'common' version should be given precedence"), as it does.

On the other hand, there are the two reasons you mention. I'm really undecided; I've asked at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (spelling)#Forums vs. Fora and Talk:Internet forum#Plural of forum for more opinions. Λυδαcιτγ 05:15, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

According to the Oxford English Dictionary, "forums" is the usual plural, with "fora" only being used when the word refers to ancient Roman meeting places. There's some amusing discussion on the point here. -- Avenue 23:38, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Note that almost all languages, almost all the time, form plurals according to their own rules when borrowing words. In Swahili plurals are formed by prefix changes, mdudu bug/insect, plural wadudu, bugs. Borrowed into English (in East Africa), dudu and dudus. The other way, Swahili friji is borrowed from English (fridge ;-), plural is mafriji.

English is just about as consistent as the other languages I am familiar with. Cases like agenda and media are not exceptions! They are cases where English borrowed the plural first. For example data and datum. Sometimes English even makes plurals of those, Hebrew plural cherubim became in the King James cherubims. (and, of course, agendas ...)

In this case, forum came first, forums is the standard plural, and fora is unusual and might be considered affected outside of a reference to Ancient Rome. Robert Ullmann 00:15, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, outside of Ancient Rome, one other context where fora is common is in the legal context where forum is referencing a place where speech occurs, the exact context that this article is about. 98.176.169.243 (talk) 12:30, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Types of forums

I found the following definitions of types of forums:

Traditional public forum: A “traditional public forum” is a traditional forum for public discourse, such as a park or sidewalk. Government restrictions on speech are subject to strict scrutiny and must be narrowly drawn to achieve a compelling state interest.

Designated public forum: The government creates a “designated public forum” when it intentionally opens a nontraditional forum for public discourse, such as state university meeting rooms open to student organizations, school board meetings open to the public by state statute, advertising space in state-owned subway and commuter rail stations, and public libraries. Restrictions on speech are analyzed with the same strict scrutiny as in a traditional public forum.

Limited public forum: The government creates a “limited public forum” when it intentionally opens a nonpublic forum to certain groups or topics, such as public school facilities open to community groups, state university student activities fund, state university facilities open to activities of registered student groups. Restrictions on speech must be viewpoint neutral and reasonable in light of the purpose served by the forum.

Nonpublic forum: Government property may be a “nonpublic forum.” Examples of nonpublic forums include airport terminals, military bases and restricted access military stores, and jailhouse grounds. Restrictions on speech must be viewpoint neutral and reasonable in light of the purpose served by the forum, as in a limited public forum.[3]

The definition of limited public forum is different in the article and a definition of designated public forum is not in the article. --Jagz 19:50, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion. When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the Edit this page link at the top. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). Λυδαcιτγ 05:25, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Forum (legal). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090213025859/http://www.freedomforum.org:80/packages/first/publicforumdoctrine/ to http://www.freedomforum.org/packages/first/publicforumdoctrine

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:31, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Forum (legal). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150412024254/http://www.iccgate.com/ to http://www.iccgate.com/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.freedomforum.org/packages/first/publicforumdoctrine/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:33, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Reduce Jumping to Another Page

It seems there is here a situation where a reader will quickly jump to another page because just a tad bit more information is not provided on this page. I think that causing that jump is not good, until that reader has finished this page and then remembers she/he wants more information about Professor Harry Kalven.

You see, when I was reading the page, the first thing that jumped into my brain as I hit that part was: Who the heck is Professor Harry Kalven?

Under "History" the last line makes mention of one Professor Harry Kalven and does contain a link to go read who he is, but that is not enough, in my view. I think the reader of this "Forum" page should be at least provided a very short description who this Harry fella is.

And I think the best way to achieve that is to use a line straight from the Harry Kalven page itself:

"one of the preeminent legal scholars of the 20th century.[1]" < < that note would have to be altered for the "Forum" page entry.

So I offer that the following would be much more professional for this "Forum" page:

And in 1965, Professor Harry Kalven, one of the preeminent legal scholars of the 20th century,[?] described such places as a "public forum that the citizen can commandeer".

Again, the footnote would have to be adjusted for the new page upon which that extra information is being added.

Thoughts on my thinking? Anyone?

On this one I do not think it is a good idea for me to make that change unless somebody offers that I am not way off the mark. Folks do ask for opinions around here, yes? Rookies like to ask those sorts of questions, don't they?M-Nyby (talk) 23:50, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Discrimination/ forced miscongeniation//harassment-intimidation-manipulation-misappropreation

If a born United stsates citizen does not act in a manner to which is benificial to the government of lived in city/state does not act according to "thier" manner of lifestyle made to live either this way or the other, that citizen is looked down on and shunned to the point of belittlement, harressment even threatened in one form or the other (legal or not) they the government or those sitting in the prominate seats of power, one will be intimidated,threatened and coerst to and not limited to and or at bribery blackmail, extortion, intimidation, and exploitation.

Let's speak on how me (we) as an American citizen are being forced to live and reside with child molesting pedifiles those taking pictures of our children,date rapping, rapping, and (pimping) selling+kidnapping if our children, women, and robbing them of their morals and values of their (our natural born heritage s and cultures,. 
Then want to turn around makethieraccusations and place blame on those trying to bring awareness to those uninformed.then try saying that one's not allowed to speak whats on his/her minds and if they do are forced to leave or threatened with incarceration or use the backgrounds that they've created to distroy the lives of the person persons bringing up the awareness of those around them calling them rabel-rousers, troublemakers....

I was fired from a job for informing the manager of a situation with a co-worker to whichi felt was violating not only my personal space but my constitutional rights as an American citizen f9r freedom of speech and religion, having me followed, and harrassed and intimidated by those that work for that business and strategically placing those undisirribles in direct paths or contact to where one has to stand up in a manner that says stay away.

I WANT A LAWYER/ATTORNY... 70.63.57.58 (talk) 14:28, 17 April 2023 (UTC)