Well, "no personal attacks" is a considerably narrower restriction than the "no group attacks" rule Ernie suggested. It leaves the door open to lots of highly offensive speech that Casper would probably want to exclude. The Swastika statue is just one example. In the present case, the pastor could get around the rule simply by putting up a plaque which says that all homosexuals deserve to die and go to Hell rather than focusing on Shepard specifically.
Ilya Somin On Mon, 13 Oct 2003, Kermit Roosevelt wrote: > I agree with Ernie that this case could be handled with a "no personal > attacks" rule. I'm not teaching First Amendment, but it would surprise > me if that were unconstitutional--is it viewpoint discrimination > because it permits personal praise? And I think Casper would be > perfectly happy to pay the price of excluding a statue of Hitler > inscribed "Sent to Hell in 1945" or whatever. The harder case, I > guess, would be a simple swastika statue. > > Quoting Ilya Somin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > I don't know if the distinction between speech attacking another > > group and > > other speech is workable. Nazi speech praising Hitler does not > > technically > > attack another group, but is certainly deeply offensive to Jews and > > others. On the other hand, speech attacking Nazi crimes DOES fit the > > technical definition, yet may be the kind of speech government has > > legitimate reason to endorse and promulgate. I think that the bottom > > line > > here supports the public-forum/non-public forum distinction. If it's > > a > > public forum, the state can't exclude a select range of viewpoints > > it > > disfavors. If it's not a public forum, but is in fact government > > speech, > > than the government can legitimately present only those views it > > agrees > > with. > > > > > > > > On Sun, 12 Oct 2003, Ernest wrote: > > > > > 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. > > > > > >
