quote: A government entity may exercise this same freedom to express its views when it receives assistance from private sources for the purpose of delivering a government-controlled message. See id., at 562 (opinion of the Court) (where the government controls the message, “it is not precluded from relying on the government-speech doctrine merely because it solicits assistance from nongovernmental sources”); Rosenberger, supra, at 833 (a government entity may “regulate the content of what is or is not expressed … when it enlists private entities to convey its own message”).
This does not mean that there are no restraints on government speech. For example, government speech must comport with the Establishment Clause. The involvement of public officials in advocacy may be limited by law, regulation, or practice. And of course, a government entity is ultimately “accountable to the electorate and the political process for its advocacy.” Southworth, 529 U. S., at 235. “If the citizenry objects, newly elected officials later could espouse some different or contrary position.” Ibid.
[. . .]
There may be situations in which it is difficult to tell whether a government entity is speaking on its own behalf or is providing a forum for private speech, but this case does not present such a situation. Permanent monuments displayed on public property typically represent government speech.
Governments have long used monuments to speak to the public. Since ancient times, kings, emperors, and other rulers have erected statues of themselves to remind their subjects of their authority and power. Triumphal arches, columns, and other monuments have been built to commemorate military victories and sacrifices and other events of civic importance. A monument, by definition, is a structure that is designed as a means of expression. When a government entity arranges for the construction of a monument, it does so because it wishes to convey some thought or instill some feeling in those who see the structure. Neither the Court of Appeals nor respondent disputes the obvious proposition that a monument that is commissioned and financed by a government body for placement on public land constitutes government speech.
Just as government-commissioned and government-financed monuments speak for the government, so do privately financed and donated monuments that the government accepts and displays to the public on government land.
[. . .]
In this case, it is clear that the monuments in Pleasant Grove’s Pioneer Park represent government speech. Although many of the monuments were not designed or built by the City and were donated in completed form by private entities, the City decided to accept those donations and to display them in the Park.
[. . .]
The meaning conveyed by a monument is generally not a simple one like “ ‘Beef. It’s What’s for Dinner.’ ” Johanns, supra, at 554. Even when a monument features the written word, the monument may be intended to be interpreted, and may in fact be interpreted by different observers, in a variety of ways. Monuments called to our attention by the briefing in this case illustrate this phenomenon.
And with this ruling, but with no apparent sense of irony, the Supreme Court unanimously voted to keep displaying the TEN COMMANDMENTS.
The simplest and most salient point is that the city couldn't display monument of Summum Aphorisms because the establishment clause prevents it. Does anyone see a hidden genius in this opinion that I don't?
Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
What really surprises me is the unanimous decision on the Summum case. I don't expect much from Scalia, Thomas, and Alito, but the others?
Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lalo: And with this ruling, but with no apparent sense of irony, the Supreme Court unanimously voted to keep displaying the TEN COMMANDMENTS.
The simplest and most salient point is that the city couldn't display monument of Summum Aphorisms because the establishment clause prevents it. Does anyone see a hidden genius in this opinion that I don't?
What? This wasn't an establishment clause case. This case, as presented by all parties was about speech. Your links are not relevant.
edit: This perhaps could have been addressed or could perhaps be followed up with a case involving the establishment clause, but this particular decision has nothing to do with establishment clause.
Posts: 1621 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lalo: And with this ruling, but with no apparent sense of irony, the Supreme Court unanimously voted to keep displaying the TEN COMMANDMENTS.
No, actually, they ruled that the state of Utah didn't have to accept a different monument entirely just because they have a Ten Commandments monument already.
As for where the Establishment Clause might fit into this, were it to be raised, Souter and Scalia both address this in their concurrences, from different angles.
(As usual, I'm entirely with Scalia on this one.)
Posts: 884 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:What? This wasn't an establishment clause case. This case, as presented by all parties was about speech. Your links are not relevant.
As a speech cases I think the decision is reasonable and defeats an argument that comes up a lot in establishment cases - that placing a monument on public property does not constitute government speech. This ruling explicitly states the opposite - that the government is entitled to its own speech and is therefore within its rights to reject a monument containing a message which the government disagrees with or does not wish to endorse.
With this fact established by the court, it will be more difficult to argue for the existence of any religious monument on government property, Scouter and Scalia's commentary notwithstanding.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Placing a monument in a park is not a form of speech by citizens; it is a form of government speech. Therefore citizens don't have the right to demand, in the name of free speech, that the government put up any monument they donate. This seems to make sense.
If the Ten Commandment statue were a violation of the establishment clause, the solution would not be to put up more monuments. The solution would be to get rid of the Ten Commandment monument.
A Ten Commandment statue in a park doesn't constitute establishing or endorsing an official government religion though.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I heard the complainants plan to bring this case again as an establishment issue. So we shall see.
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:If the Ten Commandment statue were a violation of the establishment clause, the solution would not be to put up more monuments. The solution would be to get rid of the Ten Commandment monument.
Many past Establishment Clause cases have been resolved by allowing more viewpoints to be presented in the forum being contested. But in any event this was not an Establishment Clause case so that's neither here nor there. This ruling has weakened the case for religious monuments on Government property by stating explicitly that such monuments are an expression of Government speech.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
