Summum

[Brownstein, Alan]

I think Mark and Randy both make good points, so let me pose a couple of hypotheticals to explore the potential range of the Summum opinion.

1. Town X routinely refuses to allow private parades through its central business district because of congestion and safety concerns and because once it allows some private parades to use this route, traditional public forum doctrine will limit its ability to restrict access on the basis of content or viewpoint. But X does sponsor a couple of government parades each year through the central business district. A group of local churches ask X to give them a permit to hold a Christmas parade through the central business district. The town says "no", but it says that this is such a great idea that it will adopt the parade as its own -- in which case the parade can march through the central business district. Other religious groups ask the town to permit them to hold parades celebrating the holidays of their faith through the central business district. The town says "no". Did the town violate the free speech clause of the First Amendment?

2. A similar hypothetical but the location has changed. Now it is the walls of the lobby of a government office building. The administrator of the building only permits temporary private displays on the walls under a regime of selective access -- so the walls are a non-public forum. There is one flat rule, however. All advocacy messages are prohibited.
Some churches want to put up temporary signs that say "Be all that you can be -- Attend Church -- Join a Church."
The city adopts this message as its own. Similar signs by non-Christian faiths are rejected. Is there a violation of the free speech clause of the First Amendment?

Alan Brownstein
________________________________________
From: religionlaw-bounces at lists.ucla.edu [religionlaw-bounces at lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Bezanson, Randall P [randy-bezanson at uiowa.edu]
Sent: Friday, March 27, 2009 8:35 AM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: Summum

Well ... that assumes that (1) the acceptance of the monument was coupled with a decision by the city to commit the "monument" space in the park to a government expressive them, and (2) the Court's rationale (apart from its declaration that this applies only to monuments) can be so limited.

Randy Bezanson

-----Original Message-----
From: religionlaw-bounces at lists.ucla.edu [mailto:religionlaw-bounces at lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Scarberry, Mark
Sent: Thursday, March 26, 2009 7:39 PM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: Summum

Parks, streets and sidewalks have never been seen as forums for
placement of permanent monuments by anyone who wished to do so. Now, if
the city prohibited you from holding an anti-Ten-Commandments-monument
rally in the park, next to the Ten Commandments monument, we'd have more
to talk about.

Mark S. Scarberry
Pepperdine University School of Law