Bulletin Board = Public Forum

From a First Amendment law firm:

Although the California Supreme Court found that California's free speech right applies to speech in a privately owned shopping mall because the mall is the modern-day equivalent of the traditional town square, Robins v. Pruneyard Shopping Center, 23 Cal. 3d 899 (1979), subsequent cases have narrowed Robins' reach.  In 2001, the California Supreme Court said that a tenants' association did not have the right to distribute unsolicited flyers throughout a privately owned apartment complex.  Golden Gateway Ctr. v. Golden Gateway Tenants Ass'n, 26 Cal. 4th 1013, 1035 (2001).  But even in that case, the court "emphasize[d] that [its] decision ... does not give apartment owners carte blanche to stifle tenant speech.  Tenants may still have remedies under conventional property law principles. (See Lobsenz & Swanson, The Residential Tenant's Right to Freedom of Political Expression (1986) 10 U. Puget Sound L.Rev. 1, 45.)  Moreover, many statutes and ordinances serve to protect tenants against unreasonable lease provisions and restrictions. (See, e.g., Civ. Code, § 1942.5, 1942.6, 1953.)."  Id. at 1035.  In addition, even under a free speech analysis, there might be an argument to be made that a tenant bulletin board is a kind of limited public forum -- especially to the extent the bulletin board is located in a freely accessible location -- and that the Board may not restrict postings based on the viewpoint of the poster.