First, a bit of shameless self-promotion: I have a little book, Written in Stone: Public Monuments in Changing Societies (Duke University Press, 1998) that discusses how public space is constantly the subject of ideological education by the state and/or by "private" organizations eager to claim public (especially publicly "sacred") space for its own purposes. No First Amendment analysis based on "no content discrimination" makes the slightest bit of sense. Public monuments are always content laden. It is unacceptable to say either that 1) the state can't erect monuments or, as is common, accept in behalf of the public monuments erected by private groups, whether memorials to the Confederate War Dead in front of the Texas Capitol or statues of Garibaldi in New York's Central Park; or 2) that the state capitol grounds or other central public spaces become "public fora" open to everyone on an equal basis. Among the problems with the latter, as several people have suggested, is that the public space could quickly become all filled up. A first-come, first-served rule probably makes sense if the second-in-line will in due time be served as well; it is hard to argue for the legitimacy of first-come, first-served if we're talking about scarce space in a public park. The state must be free to reject monuments or, indeed, to tear down those already erected because the space now has higher and better uses.
sandy
