As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/
Options
I can has private donation to public park?
Argonath
Registered User regular
Registered User regular
Depends if the government likes it.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/26/washington/26scotus.html?hp
I'm not eloquent enough to present any glaring insight on this, so I leave it to you.
Thoughts?
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/26/washington/26scotus.html?hp
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court ruled unanimously on Wednesday, in one of the most closely watched free speech decisions in years, that a tiny religious sect could not force a Utah city to let it erect a monument to its faith in a public park.
The fact that there is already a Ten Commandments monument in the park in Pleasant Grove City does not mean that city officials must also allow the religious group called Summum to place a monument there to the Seven Aphorisms of its faith, the justices ruled.
“We think it is fair to say that throughout our nation’s history, the general government practice with respect to donated monuments has been one of selective receptivity,†and properly so, Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. wrote for the court.
The case has been of keen interest to local and state officials across the country, as reflected in the fact that more than 20 cities and states, along with the federal government, sided with Pleasant Grove City in the matter. Not least among the officials’ concerns is what kinds of markers and monuments, if any, they might be forced to allow in public areas if Summum prevailed.
And while the case of Pleasant Grove City v. Summum, No. 07-665, involves religion, the real issue was free speech, not the separation of church and state, both of which are addressed in the First Amendment to the Constitution.
The Summum group has contended that the Pleasant Grove City officials were no more entitled to discriminate among private monuments donated to a public park than they were entitled to forbid speeches and leaflets advocating viewpoints that they found unpalatable.
But Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., writing for the court, said the arguments embraced by Summum were not really the right way to look at the case. The core issue is not private speech in a public forum but, rather, the power of government to express itself, in this case by selecting which monuments to have in a public park, Justice Alito wrote.
“The Free Speech Clause restricts government regulation of private speech,†Justice Alito noted. “It does not regulate government speech.â€
While a government entity is quite limited in its ability to regulate or restrict private speech in traditional public forums, like parks, the government entity “is entitled to say what it wishes,†Justice Alito wrote, citing earlier Supreme Court rulings. If the people do not like what their government officials say or stand for, they can vote them out of office, he wrote.
Not that government, through its officials, can say whatever it wants whenever it wants, Justice Alito observed. For one thing, government expressions must not violate the First Amendment’s ban on endorsement of a particular religion. Moreover, what government officials say may be limited “by law, regulation, or practice.â€
“And of course, a government entity is ultimately ‘accountable to the electorate and the political process for its advocacy,’ †Justice Alito wrote, quoting from an earlier Supreme Court decision.
Justice Stephen G. Breyer emphasized in a concurring opinion that, while the Summum members have been thwarted in their bid to have a monument erected, “the city has not closed off its parks to speech; no one claims that the city prevents Summum’s members from engaging in speech in a form more transient that a permanent monument.†In other words, Summum members, like other citizens, can presumably hand out leaflets or stand on soapboxes and hold forth on the issues of the day.
The small park where the sect wanted its monument placed has a dozen or so monuments donated by private groups or individuals. Besides the Ten Commandments monument, they include an historic granary and the city’s first fire station, a wishing well and other displays reflecting the history of the area.
In its ruling on Wednesday, the high court overturned a decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit, which had sided with Summum and told the city to allow the group’s monument to be erected at once.
The Summum group was founded in 1975, and contains elements of Egyptian faiths and Gnostic Christianity. The word Summum derives from Latin, and refers to the sum of all creation. It seems clear from the history of the court case that not all the group’s aphorisms resonate with the descendants of Mormon pioneers. (“Nothing rests; everything moves; everything vibrates,†one aphorism reads.)
The issues raised by the Summum lawsuit have been of interest to legal scholars as well as government officials. “No prior decision of this court has addressed the application of the Free Speech Clause to a government entity’s acceptance of privately donated, permanent monuments for installation in a public park,†Justice Alito noted.
The fact that there is already a Ten Commandments monument in the park in Pleasant Grove City does not mean that city officials must also allow the religious group called Summum to place a monument there to the Seven Aphorisms of its faith, the justices ruled.
“We think it is fair to say that throughout our nation’s history, the general government practice with respect to donated monuments has been one of selective receptivity,†and properly so, Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. wrote for the court.
The case has been of keen interest to local and state officials across the country, as reflected in the fact that more than 20 cities and states, along with the federal government, sided with Pleasant Grove City in the matter. Not least among the officials’ concerns is what kinds of markers and monuments, if any, they might be forced to allow in public areas if Summum prevailed.
And while the case of Pleasant Grove City v. Summum, No. 07-665, involves religion, the real issue was free speech, not the separation of church and state, both of which are addressed in the First Amendment to the Constitution.
The Summum group has contended that the Pleasant Grove City officials were no more entitled to discriminate among private monuments donated to a public park than they were entitled to forbid speeches and leaflets advocating viewpoints that they found unpalatable.
But Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., writing for the court, said the arguments embraced by Summum were not really the right way to look at the case. The core issue is not private speech in a public forum but, rather, the power of government to express itself, in this case by selecting which monuments to have in a public park, Justice Alito wrote.
“The Free Speech Clause restricts government regulation of private speech,†Justice Alito noted. “It does not regulate government speech.â€
While a government entity is quite limited in its ability to regulate or restrict private speech in traditional public forums, like parks, the government entity “is entitled to say what it wishes,†Justice Alito wrote, citing earlier Supreme Court rulings. If the people do not like what their government officials say or stand for, they can vote them out of office, he wrote.
Not that government, through its officials, can say whatever it wants whenever it wants, Justice Alito observed. For one thing, government expressions must not violate the First Amendment’s ban on endorsement of a particular religion. Moreover, what government officials say may be limited “by law, regulation, or practice.â€
“And of course, a government entity is ultimately ‘accountable to the electorate and the political process for its advocacy,’ †Justice Alito wrote, quoting from an earlier Supreme Court decision.
Justice Stephen G. Breyer emphasized in a concurring opinion that, while the Summum members have been thwarted in their bid to have a monument erected, “the city has not closed off its parks to speech; no one claims that the city prevents Summum’s members from engaging in speech in a form more transient that a permanent monument.†In other words, Summum members, like other citizens, can presumably hand out leaflets or stand on soapboxes and hold forth on the issues of the day.
The small park where the sect wanted its monument placed has a dozen or so monuments donated by private groups or individuals. Besides the Ten Commandments monument, they include an historic granary and the city’s first fire station, a wishing well and other displays reflecting the history of the area.
In its ruling on Wednesday, the high court overturned a decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit, which had sided with Summum and told the city to allow the group’s monument to be erected at once.
The Summum group was founded in 1975, and contains elements of Egyptian faiths and Gnostic Christianity. The word Summum derives from Latin, and refers to the sum of all creation. It seems clear from the history of the court case that not all the group’s aphorisms resonate with the descendants of Mormon pioneers. (“Nothing rests; everything moves; everything vibrates,†one aphorism reads.)
The issues raised by the Summum lawsuit have been of interest to legal scholars as well as government officials. “No prior decision of this court has addressed the application of the Free Speech Clause to a government entity’s acceptance of privately donated, permanent monuments for installation in a public park,†Justice Alito noted.
I'm not eloquent enough to present any glaring insight on this, so I leave it to you.
Thoughts?
DaDdY's HoMe.
Argonath on
0
Posts
"But Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., writing for the court, said the arguments embraced by Summum were not really the right way to look at the case. The core issue is not private speech in a public forum but, rather, the power of government to express itself, in this case by selecting which monuments to have in a public park, Justice Alito wrote.
“The Free Speech Clause restricts government regulation of private speech,” Justice Alito noted. “It does not regulate government speech.” "
If the government is forced to accept this monument, then they would likewise be forced to accept the Flying Spaghetti Monster monument, the Qingu As Master of the Universe monument, and the Gigantic Winged Penis monument. This isn't a slippery slope fallacy; if the court ruled in Summun's favor it would set a legitimate precedent for any group to sue if the government did not display their monument.
I also like how the court made an effort to separate the issue of "should government be forced to accept any monument for display in public parks?" from the issue of "does displaying particular religious monuments in public parks constitute a breach of the establishment clause?" I think, as long as these issues have separate jurisprudence, then I'm okay with this.
And I don't think the solution is to put up every religious monument they get; the solution is not to erect any religious monuments in public areas.
And what does the Establishment Clause regulate, again? The government cannot discriminate based upon viewpoint. Blanket bans are okay, but not selective ones. And this seems selective.
What about the ones that are already present?
Should they be torn down, or left behind as some sort of grandfathering in of pre-existing monuments?
He's doing a dance and waving his arms and basically saying the First Amendment doesn't really apply that much here because this is not a case of govt regulating private speech but rather a case of government choosing how to speak, and the FA only restricts the former and (somewhat) protects the latter, including a decision NOT to speak in a certain way.
it's ass backwards reasoning to get to a correct result because for some reason they didn't want to touch the establishment issue
My problem with outright banning religious monuments in public spaces is that the court does not have a compelling or logical definition for what "religion" is. Personally, I don't think the category of "religion" should have any special distinction in jurisprudence, because there's no functional difference between a "religion" and any other ideology. One of the justices brought up a monument to John Lennon in New York. Why should that be allowed while religious monuments are banned?
I mean, ideally religious monuments wouldn't exist, because religion is fucking stupid. But I'm wary of any blunt jurisprudence that forbids "religious monuments" but allows "non-religious monuments" because I think that's a line in the sand and such an interpretation could easily come back to bite us. (Though in certain cases, such as the pledge of allegiance, invoking God seems clearly unconstitutional.)
I agree with that
I don't agree with Alito's stated reasoning
Well, yes, that I would agree with. I can't force the City of Chicago to erect a monument to Hitler (fun fact, we have an ancient Roman column donated by Mussolini outside Soldier Field) because it has previously accepted donations for Millenium Park or some of the statues in Lincoln Park were gifts to the city. Ignoring the Establishment Clause as it pertains to Governmental Speech, and protected speech here is ludicrous, though.
And if you're going to say it's okay, Alito's reasoning seems as good to me as any other argument you could make for it.
It wouldn't because one of the restrictions on government speech is the establishment clause. So in my opinion that monument should be taken out.
But again, for some reason, the majority opinion did not want to decide on this issue.
The Government already determines what constitutes a religion and what doesn't. That isn't an issue, and if your group falls under that arbitrary labeling then you operate under different circumstances. Thanks in part to the First Amendment and several Acts of Congress over the years.
Should parks be required to accept whatever monuments are presented them? That seems the core question of the suit. And obviously, the answer should be no. The government should be able to pick and choose what gets displayed, within certain guidelines for the criteria they may use. That was, and should've been, the basis of this decision. The government should be allowed to reject the crazy cult monument.
But beyond that, the government should not be allowed to reject the crazy cult monument solely because they don't like that religion. And the funky rhetoric about governments having free speech rights pretty much establishes a precedent for them to discriminate against religion on "governmental free speech" grounds.
Which is why I said I like the decision, but not the majority opinion. And this is likely to be an ongoing problem given the current Chief Justice. For any given case, he can rule with the majority, then assign the majority opinion to whoever he wants to provide the crazy-ass logic to establish the desired precedent.
This could be a loooooong couple of decades for SCOTUS.
No, I don't really
They should remove that one too
But in this particular case the right result was reached (and the issue of "should we also remove the ten commandments monument" wasn't raised and if it came up in another case I would argue it should see the same result)
What ElJeffe said.
That's what I don't get, though. How can they legally ignore the Establishment Clause in this ruling? They could have said that no group has the right to force the Government to express their views without the Government's consent which they are in no way obligated to provide. Due to the nature of this monument, and the existence of other religious monuments on public land, however, the city is not legally allowed to promote viewpoint discrimination on a religious order. It must either have no religious monuments or free access to all other religious monuments to be displayed so as to not establish a state sponsored religious order.
It'd be both rulings in one.
Yeah, SCOTUS did not have the right to order the government to remove all religious monuments based on this case. The other monuments weren't directly related. Now, they could've rambled in the majority opinion to the effect that all religious monuments should be yanked, but I think that would be equally dubious (while I would at least be sympathetic to the idea).
Forget about the Ten Commandments monument. Fuck that one. What should we have done about the Crazy Cult Monument? We should've allowed the government to deny it.
They kick the case on a different issue and thus don't need to rule on the other issue because the case has already been decided
They didn't "reach the question" of the establishment clause basically
The law is weird.
Well, I can assume that Alito doesn't want to approach the establishment issue because that means the Ten Commandments would be challenged. I agree with your conclusion, it's the right decision for all the wrong reasons.
Fix'd.
This is why I don't like the idea that government must ban so-called "religious monuments" but allow "non-religious monuments" (like the Lennon one).
I mean, conservatives and the SCOTUS justify propping up Ten Commandments and God in the pledge because they are supposedly important "historically," from a secular perspective. It is incredibly easy for them to shift the fundamental identity of this speech from religious to secular. Similarly, secular speech can easily be shifted to religious speech when it is advantageous to do so (see pacifist/nonviolent ideologues trying to get out of conscription).
...
"The Alito opinion did not join directly in that debate, but did include a passing phrase suggesting that there are some restraints on “government speech,” such as a need to “comport with the Establishment Clause.” (Since Justices Scalia and Thomas said they joined the Alito opinion “in full,” Alito’s reference to the Establishment Clause was not strong enough to deny the opinion their support.)
It does appear, though, that future cases over displays of religion in the public square are not likely to turn on free speech analyses. Wednesday’s decision seems clearly to have scuttled that as a litigating strategy against, at least, permanent monuments. So religious displays will still be judged by the Court by the sometimes meandering interpretation of what the Establishment Clause forbids, or permits."
Via scotusblog
It doesn't have to ban them, but it cannot discriminate against other religious monuments due to their viewpoint without breaching the Establishment Clause; as only accepting Jesus related paraphernalia and no others effectively is a governmental endorsement of Christianity.
And that's why this ruling seems weird to me as they basically put blinders on and decided to pigeonhole it as exclusively about freedom of speech and completely ignore the rest of the First Amendment.
They will also kick cases on threshold issues like standing and ripeness. Appeals court process can be rather nuanced.
Other times (kinda like this time) they pretty much broadcast the fact that they didn't want to reach a particular issue.
However, I'm still not seeing how the Ten Commandments thing doesn't run into the Establishment Clause if they're going to accept some religious monuments but not others. It's de facto endorsement if you're only allowed to put up monuments for religions that were around when the city was established.
I'm curious as to what guidelines y'all would suggest for governments deciding on what monuments to put up in their spaces.
• No swear words
• No references to deities
• No references to Hitler or Osama bin Laden
I mean, any guidelines are going to be completely arbitrary. So honestly, I feel like we might as well let our society progress naturally. As it becomes more progressive, less people will want to put up dumb-assed religious monuments, and the situation will right itself.
or it could be construed as a statue of general applicability that incidentally affects some religious expression
because it means that religions with no historical ties to the community are categorically denied the ability to place a monument but it also means ANY monument with no historical ties is categorically denied the same thing
really though the rule should be no religious monuments
then we get into the whole discussion, is the ten commandments monument a religious one or a historical one....
For the first amendment and the law to be consistent I think Thanatos has the right Idea -no religious monuments should be on public land, period.
Tearing down (or selling to the highest bidder) every religious monument on government property is simply not realistic, the public won't have any of it.