When First Amendment scholars are making plans to get together for lunch, how do they decide on a time, place, and manner?
They debate, then start talking all at once. This turns into loud, personal argument, which is then blamed on bloggers. Eventually, each goes to lunch separately.
Whilst eating, each posts numerous Tweets explaining why their restaurant choice was superior.
Three guidelines. (1) The decision must be cuisine-neutral. (2) The choice must be narrowly tailored to address significant hunger. And (3) they must leave open ample alternative restaurants.
(Arguably, however, the limited spectrum of acceptable restaurants could justify a single restaurant choice notwithstanding competing views.)
In addition, getting there cannot be an undue burden on any of the people meeting and there must not be any restrictions on the D and E (delicious and edible) standard for the food.