Should We Have a Statue of Tyranny?
I find this an interesting case to deal with the subjects of Free Political Speech, equal protection under the law. freedom of religion and whether or not a government having accepted a monument for public display, must accept all other monuments promoting contrary beliefs.
The Supreme Court today announced it will review a case that could be used to install a “Statue of Tyranny” to oppose the Statue of Liberty in New York Harbor.
“We’re delighted that the Supreme Court agreed to take this critical case – it’s exactly what we were hoping for,” said Jay Sekulow, chief counsel of the American Center for Law and Justice, which represents the city of Pleasant Grove, Utah, in the dispute.
Jay Sekalow of the ACLJ
“The Supreme Court is faced with a dramatic opportunity: Preserve sound precedent involving the well-established distinction between government speech and private speech – or permit a twisted interpretation of the Constitution to create havoc in cities and localities across America,” Sekulow said. “The lower court decision – if left unchecked – would ultimately force local governments to remove long-standing and well-established patriotic, religious and historical displays.
“The lower court decision misses a key distinction between government speech and private speech,” Sekulow said. “The government has to be neutral toward private speech, but it does not have to be neutral in its own speech. The 10th Circuit confused this rule when it said private parties have a First Amendment right to put up the monuments of their choosing in a city park, unless the city takes away all other donated monuments.”
The ACLJ’s petition argued: “When private speakers have the right to use government property to speak, there is a speech forum. But when, as here, the donor cedes and the government accepts ownership and control of something from a private party, that ‘something’ is no longer private property. It becomes government property. And if it is a message-bearing ‘something,’ any communication thenceforth is government speech, not private speech.”
It continued: “Accepting a monument for permanent display as the government’s own property does not require accepting other monuments in the name of content- or viewpoint-neutrality. Nor does the government’s acceptance of a donated monument require that a government park be turned into a cluttered junkyard of monuments contributed by all comers.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=60375
