Re: Monuments

[Marty Lederman]

Yes, if the City of Caspar (implausibly) argues that its Ten Commandments monument is "private" _expression_, and insists on retaining that monument, then it will be hard-pressed to exclude the homophobic monument.  But I was assuming, from the L.A. Times article, that because Caspar considers itself frustratingly bound by the CTA10 decision in Summum, it must be adopting the view asserted by the City of Ogden in the Summum case -- namely, that because the Ten Commandments monument is government _expression_, the Free Speech Clause does not oblige the city to erect other, disfavored monuments. ----- Original Message ----- From: Marci Hamilton To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, October 14, 2003 10:39 AM Subject: Re: Monuments Marty makes some very good points.  The problem here is the Ten Commandments, which are not your typical monument.  I have been assuming that the Ten Commandments were not the city's _expression_, but rather the Eagles'.  If they are the city's _expression_, the city has an additional set of Establishment Clause problems.  If they are the Eagles' _expression_ but simply on public land, in a public forum, then keeping out the political/religious (albeit distasteful) Shepard monument seems hard to make constitutional.  Marci