Supreme Court Decision May Affect Freedom of Speech
Linna Jones
Commentary Editor
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
The First Amendment gives the citizens of the Unites States the right to say what they believe and voice their opinion about any issue. Without this small, but important piece of the U.S. Constitution, we could not express ourselves, publish our opinions, assemble or petition the government when we know things are not right.
An issue currently in the news may limit the use of this amendment in certain situations.
According to the New York Times, a religious sect called the Summum church sent a proposal to the mayor of Pleasant Grove City, Utah in 2003 to erect a monument inscribed with the Seven Aphorisms, the commandments of the sect, in the city park next to the Ten Commandments already on displayed. The city denied the church's proposal. The Church filed a lawsuit and federal appeals court ruled that the first amendment required the city to display the monument.
The Supreme Court will decide whether or not a public park will be open to some donations must accept others as well in this issue. The article described the parks as public forums where the government cannot discriminate among speakers based on what they have to say. A donated object is, so far, an open question.
How are these two monuments different? They both express a religious message, but the one already displayed is a Christian monument, donated in 1971 as a monument to city’s pioneer heritage. There is nothing wrong with displaying a Christian monument and other monuments, but other voices have a right to be expressed as well.
Michael Daniels, the mayor of the city defined several fine lines in explaining why the monuments would be treated differently.
- Only donations concerning the city’s history are eligible for display in the park as a matter of longstanding policy
- Only when donated by groups with a long-standing association with the city
- Monuments on government property become government speech
Daniels mentioned law and history, but not religion. According to the article, “Under the First Amendment, the government can generally say what it likes without giving equal time to opposing views; it has much less latitude to choose among private speakers.”
Another reason given to the fact of the denial of the request is that the city asks when given a donation, “Does it fit with the heritage of the people of this area?”
If this is the case, should some monuments currently erected need to be taken down, because it does not reflect the heritage of the people? Depending on which area, the heritage of the people deals with ancestry that established the area and its ideals and development over time.
The Summums said if governments seek to avoid accepting donations, they have several options.
- They can chose to display nothing
- They can speak in their own voice by creating or commissioning their own monuments
- They can adopt the messages conveyed by the donated monuments as their own, but only if they do so expressly and unequivocally
By displaying nothing or adopting a message, the city controls what they want to have in a public area. The established rules provide a policy to what can possible be displayed, but when that policy limits others, it isn't right. Unless, the government of the area can provide a reasonable answer for not accepting displaying a monument, it should not take away the rights of others
The Supreme Court considered this case Nov. 13, but will make a ruling before June.
This ruling will affect monuments religious or otherwise. If governments have the power to dictate what we may put on public property or decide what may be shown, it limits the America’s voice in the work of the government. Then what will happen to the freedom of speech, press, assemble, petition and America’s voice if we are limited?
Have a comment? Please e-mail us.
©The Voice 2008
