You don't think we can distinguish between speech that attacks another group and speech that does not? Many public fora are limited public fora, and I would think most government fora can and ought to be limited in this way. Wouldn't NEA v. Finley support a similar argument? But it's been a while since I did 1st Amendment stuff; perhaps the doctrine has deteriorated to the point this doesn't work.
Ernie Young -----Original Message----- From: Lynne Henderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Sun, 12 Oct 2003 16:37:04 -0700 Subject: Re: Fw: to condemn Matthew Shepard, Pastor plans monument for City Park I agree, Marci, there is a kind of "serves them right" flavor here--but assume that it wasn't the Ten Commandments, or that they had allowed the Decalogue, and a war memorial with a statement from a private group, and one or two other things . . . .like a Santa Claus (sorry) The article does say that the Eagles have offered to take the Ten Commandments back/out of the park, thereby savingthe city's face. I guess I just got "emotional" knowing that I couldn't figure out a way to prevent the installation otherwise, and was hoping someone who knows far more than I might have a way to prevent the--dare I say it?-- hateful and hate-filled, permanent message (to distinguish his rants outside St Mark's during the funeral, or a march through Casper, or whatever) Thanks Lynne ----- Original Message ----- From: Marci Hamilton To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, October 12, 2003 3:57 PM Subject: Re: Fw: to condemn Matthew Shepard, Pastor plans monument for City Park Casper's horror is actually rather funny. They have been caught red-handed. If Casper is horrified with the proposed statue, all they need do is remove the Ten Commandments, and declare the public park is not a public forum. If they are wedded to having the Ten Commandments, then they have to take the bad with the good. Why should they get a pass on the Ten Commandments, but then be able to pick and choose between other viewpoints on public property? Marci And please do not tell me that the Ten Commandments are the basis of American law and therefore are neutral.... The first four would be unconstitutional were they the law. The Supreme Court surely got it right when they did not include the decalogue in the frieze above the courtroom, but only two prohibitions (in Hebrew) on Moses' plaque, murder and adultery. The only collection of ten in the courtroom is the ten Bill of Rights, carved on tablets, in the front, center frieze.
