a.    The curtilage of a jailhouse—like that of a courthouse or
statehouse—is a seat of government, and thus an obvious center for
protest.  It is a traditional public forum.  The jailhouse grounds
had not been marked with any “no trespassing” sign, and only the
sheriff’s fiat transformed Ps’ lawful conduct into an unlawful
trespass.
b.    The majority is simply wrong, and forgetful of Hague, when it
reverts back to the old Holmes’ view that the government, like a
private property owner, can control what occurs on its property.
There may be some non-public forums—such as the Senate gallery—that
can restrict speech.  But narrowly-tailored statutes are required to
specifically achieve this.  Some “custodian” of public property (like
the sheriff in this case) cannot have the power to capriciously
decide who shall be allowed to, and who shall be prevented from,
expressing their views.
c.    Ps protested with no violence; there was no attempted jail
break; no storming the prison; and they did not interfere with people
or traffic (despite the majority’s contention that Ps “blocked the
driveway”).  Thus, they did not interfere at all with the alleged
jailhouse purpose of “security.”
d.    The sheriff tried to argue Ps trespassed, but he clearly
prohibited Ps’ speech based on their viewpoint.