The world we leave our children -Reply

[Vance R. Koven]

At 10:00 PM +0500 10/9/97, Sanford Levinson wrote:

>I think it is absurd to argue that a public space, like the Public Garden,
>becomes a "public forum" in the sense that the state (or city) must allow
>any and all groups to put up statues if the state itself puts up a statue.

>...But maybe it is not absurd to argue that Channing has
>to go, depending on the reason that Boston chose to honor him.  If the
>reason is that he was an active citizen (like Martin Luther King, say), then
>I think he can stay.  If, on the other hand, they're honoring him as one of
>the Founders of the Unitarian Church, then I do indeed think he has to come
>down, as it is no business of the state to honor people for "narrowly"
>religious aspects of their lives.  (We had an earlier discussion of this in
>regard to (hypothetical) statues honoring Cardinal Bernadin.)

I'm sorry I missed the earlier discussion, but there is somehow something
unsatisfying about singling out religious personages for a recognition ban
unless the appropriate paper trail can be constructed showing their secular
merit (as if religious history weren't itself of importance: why shouldn't
there be a statute of Mary Baker Eddy? why shouldn't there be one if it had
been Mario instead of Mary?).

In any event this wasn't the main point, only that concerning whether a
public space that *is* a public forum for some purposes can be excluded as
a public forum for other purposes depending on the nature of the "speech"
and its relation to the government's need to exercise a degree of physical
control over the space.




************************************************************
*  Vance R. Koven                      phone: 617-482-3852 *
*  attorney at law                     fax:   617-482-4972 *
*  20 Park Plaza, Ste. 520      net: vrkoven at world.std.com *
*  Boston, MA 02116-4303                                   *
************************************************************