A.    Intro.:  Just as with the government as employer, the U.S. Supreme Court has taken various approaches to the government as manager of public property.  Holmes’ view on the government as manager of public property in Davis mirrored his view as government as employer:  “For the legislature absolutely or conditionally to forbid public speaking in a highway or public park is no more an infringement of the rights of a member of the public than for the owner of a private house to forbid it in his house.  [Just as] the
Legislature may end the right of the public to enter upon the public
place by putting an end to the dedication to public uses, so it may
take the lesser step of limiting the public use to certain purposes.”
Once again, this is Holmes taking a very narrow view on free speech.
Just as Pickering superseded Holmes’ endorsement of the “rights-privilege” doctrine, Hague superseded Holmes’ view of the government’s management of public property.