Speak your mind, but bring your own bullhorn

The First Amendment guarantees government may not take away your right to free speech.

It does not give you the right to impose your speech on others.

A couple of times a year someone calls to complain that the newspaper is denying them their free speech rights by refusing to report on their problem or declining to publish their letter to the editor. They invariably call it censorship. I tell them it is editing.

The newspaper is not obliged to use its wherewithal -- its personnel, presses, ink, paper and delivery network -- to act as a conduit for anyone else's viewpoints. No one has a right to barge uninvited into your living room and launch into a lecture.

A unanimous U.S. Supreme Court this past week determined there is no First Amendment right to erect a permanent monument to your religious beliefs in a public park, even if that public park already provides space to the tenets of another religion.

A tax-dodging, pseudo-religious group out of Salt Lake City calling themselves Summum wanted their "Seven Aphorisms" -- including such nonsense as "Nothing rests; everything moves; everything vibrates." -- erected in a park in Pleasant Grove City, Utah, arguing the park already hosts a monument with the Ten Commandments.

The case was argued not on the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment but on the Free Speech Clause, which has been interpreted to dictate that speech may not be discriminated against by governments based solely on its content. If all speech is treated similarly, such as banning bullhorns in neighborhoods or billboards of a certain size or sandwich boards that block the sidewalks, that is considered acceptable. But you may not prohibit advertising for outcall services, while allowing ads for church services.

Writing the court's opinion, Justice Samuel Alito deftly boiled the issue down to the questions that needed to be answered: "Were petitioners (the city council of Pleasant Grove City) engaging in their own expressive conduct? Or were they providing a forum for private speech?

"If petitioners were engaging in their own expressive conduct, then the Free Speech Clause has no application. The Free Speech Clause restricts government regulation of private speech; it does not regulate government speech."

Alito reasoned, "When a government entity arranges for the construction of a monument, it does so because it wishes to convey some thought or instill some feeling in those who see the structure."

Alito then launched into a philosophical ramble around the nation's parks, literally asking what the meaning of meaning is.

What is the meaning of the Statue of Liberty? At the time of its erection marking the nation's centennial, it was a symbol of friendship between the republics of France and America. Alito notes it has since become a welcoming symbol for immigrants.

He also notes that when some objected to the gravestone nature of the Vietnam Memorial, a flagstaff and statue of three soldiers were added, altering the "meaning" of the monument.

Whatever else you say about the ruling from the staunchly conservative Alito, you have to chuckle at an opinion with a footnote quoting the entire lyrics of John Lennon's "Imagine."

"What, for example, is 'the message' of the Greco-Roman mosaic of the word 'Imagine' that was donated to New York City's Central Park in memory of John Lennon?" Alito asks. "Some observers may 'imagine' the musical contributions that John Lennon would have made if he had not been killed. Others may think of the lyrics of the Lennon song that obviously inspired the mosaic and may 'imagine' a world without religion, countries, possessions, greed, or hunger."

And what, the justice asks, is the message conveyed by a statue of Pancho Villa donated to the city of Tucson, Ariz.? "Does this statue commemorate a 'revolutionary leader who advocated for agrarian reform and the poor' or 'a violent bandit'?"

Whatever the meaning of the message, it is one conveyed by the government.

Alito concluded: "In sum, we hold that the City's decision to accept certain privately donated monuments while rejecting respondent's is best viewed as a form of government speech."

You may speak freely, but you can't impose your speech on anyone else by usurping their forum.

Thomas Mitchell is editor of the Review-Journal and writes about the role of the press and access to public information. He may be contacted at 383-0261 or via e-mail at tmitchell@reviewjournal.com. Read his blog at lvrj.com/blogs/mitchell.