Re: to condemn Matthew Shepard,Pastor plans monument for City Pa rk

[Eugene Volokh]

I don't think a focus on misperception is that helpful here; among other things, if the government is really just worried about misperception, why doesn't it put up prominent disclaimers stressing that this is an open forum, and the government doesn't endorse any of the speech there?  I agree, though, that the government could set up a rule that says "no permanent structures" (see [b]) or for that matter "we'll be speaking through the permanent structures, so we get to decide what to put up and what not to put up." -----Original Message----- From: Mark Graber [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, October 13, 2003 2:32 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: to condemn Matthew Shepard,Pastor plans monument for City Pa rk I confess to thinking the permanent structures v. temporary speech distinction better.  I think a very reasonable claim can be made that   a) a permanent structure is likely to be misperceived as a state message, regardless of surroundings.   b) public fora are subject to time, place and manner restrictions.  One legitimate restriction is that one cannot permanently occupy scarce space.   Mark A. Graber [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 10/13/03 02:26PM >>> Would it be possible to draft a "hate speech" law that covers this situation and could be upheld? Judy Baer