come from street lamps which are far removed from many areas of the Plateau. The safety of those in attendance is of compelling interest to the City and the Commissioners of Fairmount Park and is sufficient to overcome First Amendment objections to a refusal to permit a nighttime concert on Belmont Plateau -- even a political one.
Another important consideration is the effect the political-cultural concert would have on the use of Belmont Plateau for recreational activities. The convergence of 10,000 people for a concert scheduled to begin at 7:00 P.M. will seriously impinge upon the rights of hundreds of Philadelphia residents who traditionally use the picnic areas and athletic fields of Belmont Plateau on the Fourth of July weekend.
It is not an abridgment of free speech if the limitation on the use of Belmont Plateau furthers an important government interest which is unrelated to suppression of free expression.
Under the circumstance presented here, it was not unlawful for the Commissioners of Fairmount Park to refuse to issue the permit for the political-cultural event.
IV THE TENT CITY
Plaintiffs are unable to cite any authority for the proposition that the erection of a tent city to accommodate 2000 people is a constitutionally protected right. Indeed, the authority is to the contrary. In a case involving a member of the plaintiff coalition Vietnam Veterans Against The War v. Morton, 164 U.S.App.D.C. 391, 506 F.2d 53 (1974), the Court held that "cooking and camping overnight, activities whose unfettered exercise is not crucial to the survival of democracy . . . are . . . beyond the pale of First Amendment protection." 506 F.2d at 57. The Court drew support for this conclusion from a prior ruling of the Supreme Court which reinstated an injunction of the District Court prohibiting the Vietnam Veterans Against The War from camping on a public mall. Morton v. Quaker Action Group, 402 U.S. 926, 91 S. Ct. 1398, 28 L. Ed. 2d 665 (1971).
Apart from the constitutional issue and the obvious considerations of health and safety, the City was justified in refusing a permit because the area designated by the plaintiffs has been preempted for other bicentennial activities.
V THE PAVILION
Plaintiffs also request space for a pavilion, 75 feet by 75 feet, in Washington Square to graphically demonstrate the role of the working class by means of films and other displays for the period June 1, 1976 to July 8, 1976.
Here again, while this manner of expression may be constitutionally protected, plaintiffs do not have an unrestricted right to present their message at that place during that period of time and in that manner.
If plaintiffs desire to use public property, in order to avoid any scheduling conflicts I will enter an Order that the City and the Commissioners of Fairmount Park, through Philadelphia '76 Inc., the official bicentennial coordinating agency, make suitable arrangements for the plaintiffs to offer an appropriate display on the same terms and conditions as other exhibitors.
Finally, plaintiffs request that I declare Regulation 10 of the Fairmount Park Commission unconstitutional for vagueness. I decline to do so because as applied in the context of this case, the denial of permits for the use of park facilities was based upon constitutionally permissible grounds.