Q The Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that "to achieve First Amendment protection, a plaintiff must show that they possessed: 1) a message to be communicated; and 2) an audience to receive that message, regardless of the medium in which the message is to be expressed." With this ruling in mind, consider the following case involving a photographer and private security guards: In 2003, Ram Z. Porat was photographing a group of New York City residential buildings known as Lincoln Towers when he was approached by a security guard who told him that management policy didn't allow nonresidents to photograph the buildings. Porat continued taking pictures and entered a public courtyard on the premises of the buildings. When the guard questioned him, Porat said that "he was taking pictures for aesthetic and recreational reasons." The guard demanded identification and also to see the pictures. Porat refused. Another guard informed Porat he was under civilian arrest and called police, who ticketed Porat for trespassing. Porat filed suit in federal district court, stating that the guards and police had violated his First Amendment rights when they ticketed him for protected conduct. What do you think? Based on the facts presented and considering the Supreme Court definition of protected behavior, did Porat prevail in his lawsuit?