Is a rule abridging speech by members of the public at an open public meeting of a city government a presumptively unconstitutional content-based speech regulation under the 1st Amendment if it does not also apply to 'staff' and government invite speakers when the justification for distinction between public and non-public speakers is that 'staff' and invite speakers are experts, while public speakers just create 'the potential for endless discussion'?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED The questions presented in this matter are: ; 1) Is a rule abridging speech by members of the public at an open public meeting of a city government : a presumptively unconstitutional content-based speech regulation under the 1** Amendment if it does not also apply to ‘staff’ and government invite speakers when the . justification for distinction between public and non-public speakers is that ‘staff’ and invite speakers are experts, while public speakers just create “the potential for endless . discussion” [