Supreme Court Rules Against Utah Sect

Monument won't fly; public statues are 'government speech'

By Nick McMaster, Newser Staff

Posted Feb 25, 2009 2:12 PM CST

(Newser) – The Supreme Court today denied a Utah sect the right to erect a monument in a public park, settling a case that had serious implications for free speech and freedom of religion, the New York Times reports. Members of the Summum religion are free to espouse their beliefs in the park in Pleasant Grove City, but the First Amendment does not guarantee them the right to speak through the government, which the erection of a monument amounts to.

“The Free Speech Clause restricts government regulation of private speech,” Justice Samuel Alito wrote for the court, which ruled unanimously. “It does not regulate government speech.” Free speech protection goes both ways, the court reasoned: Choosing which monuments to accept is part of the government’s right to express itself, which is protected from coercion by the members of Summum.

[Images (2)]

[Quotes (1)]

Members of the Supreme Court await the arrival of President Barack Obama prior to his address to a joint session of Congress in the House Chamber of the Capitol in Washington , Tuesday, Feb. 24, 2009. (AP Photo/Charles Dharapak)

The U.S. Supreme Court is shown February 5, 2009 in Washington, DC. (Getty Images)

« Prev« Prev | Next »Next » Slideshow

We think it is fair to say that throughout our nation's history, the general government practice with respect to donated monuments has been one of selective receptivity.
- Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr.

« Prev« Prev | Next »Next » Slideshow

To report an error on this story, notify our editors.

OTHER STORIES ON OUR RADAR

Getty Images

White Grandfather Cuffed for Walking With Black Granddaughter (NewsOne)

Man in Mugshot Explains Why He Has Half a Head (HuffPost)

These Exes Were Spotted Making Out … and That's a Bad Thing (Bleacher Report)

Help! I'm Having an Incestuous Relationship With My Twin (Slate)

Proof that Twitter Users are Sexier Than Facebook Users? (GeekSugar)

Partner Links

A snapshot of the day's best news stories.

View Larger Grid

All Today Yesterday Pick a Date

COMMENTS

Read the comment policy

Showing 3 of 9 comments

bewilderbeast1

Jul 19, 2010 3:03 PM CDT

Do religious freaks ever stop to consider that we have free speech and freedom of religion IN SPITE OF them, and not thanks to them?

MarkFL

Feb 26, 2009 10:38 PM CST

Summum can now relitigate the case becuase it can argue the establishment clause instead of free speech. The government is not free to speak. The constitution restrict government speech and specifically forbids religious endorsements. This case was about whether all monuments should be accepted. If the answer is no in this case, the court has set itself up to say that no monuments are acceptable. It is either all or nothing. Anything else is establishment.

MarkFL

Feb 26, 2009 10:33 PM CST

The supreme court is wrong because the government is the representative of Summum. You can't say that the government is coerced by the free speech of its citizens. It is the governments responsibility to protect free speech rights and not to speak.

What's Popular Now on Facebook

Guy Buys $123 Safe on eBay, Finds Major Cash Inside

Study Finds Arsenic in Baby Formula, Cereal Bars

New York Times (Source Grid »)

Monument-building doesn't constitute a constitutionally-protected 'public forum'
Bloomberg

Group claims its '7 Aphorisms' are missing commandments
Baltimore Sun

Gun ownership off limits for those convicted of domestic violence
Washington Post

Crime & Courts • US

free speech • First Amendment • Utah • monument • religious freedom • Samuel A. Alito • US Supreme Court • justices

More Newser Stories

Supreme Court: Westboro Protests Protected

Pickets might be 'outrageous,' but covered by 1st Amendment

(NEWSER) - John Roberts' Supreme Court ruled 8-1 today that the controversial Westboro Baptist Church pickets outside military funerals might be "outrageous," but they're also protected under the First Amendment. The ruling upholds a reversal of a lower court's $5 million award to a dead Marine's father, who sued Westboro members after they picketed his son's funeral. Samuel Alito was the lone dissenter, notes the AP. More»

Justices Cite Free Speech in Animal Abuse Videos

They seem ready to strike down law

(NEWSER) - The Supreme Court seems likely to back an appellate court ruling that said depictions of animal cruelty are protected as free speech by the First Amendment. In arguments today, the justices considered the case of a man convicted of selling dogfighting videos under a 1999 law that equates videos of animal cruelty with child pornography. Most of the justices seemed to be of the opinion that the law’s definition of banned content is too vague, notes USA Today. More»

Animal Cruelty Case Hits Supreme Court

Landmark case to decide 1st Amendment as it applies to cruelty

(NEWSER) - Animal cruelty takes the floor of the Supreme Court tomorrow, as the justices consider whether to overturn an appeals court judgment that allows the depiction of animal cruelty under the auspices of the First Amendment. The lower court wasn’t keen on animal cruelty, but found that our furry friends—unlike children, say—“would likely not suffer continuing harm by having their images out in the marketplace." More»

High Court May Lift Restrictions on Corporate Cash in Politics

Firms could be allowed to spend freely on ads

(NEWSER) - September 9 could mark a watershed in campaign finance, as the Supreme Court hears a special argument for overturning long-standing rules that restrict corporations from buying political advertisements, the Los Angeles Times reports. The court has used the case of Hillary: The Movie, a documentary that a lower courts decided fell under the definition of campaign advertising, to take on the larger issue of whether corporations should have the same right to political free speech as individuals. More»

1st Amendment v. Dogfight Video: High Court to Decide

Conviction rests on First Amendment status of animal abuse tapes

(NEWSER) - The Supreme Court agreed today to hear that pits the First Amendment against the production and sale of dogfighting videos, the Chicago Tribune reports. The case involves a man jailed for selling several brutally explicit videos of pit bulls fighting. A federal appeals court overturned his conviction on grounds that the law against dogfighting videos violated free-speech protections—which apply even to depictions of illegal activity. More»

NEWS FROM OUR PARTNERS

What is Newser?

Face it: there's too much news. At Newser, we choose the most thought-provoking and entertaining stories from hundreds of US and international sources and reduce them to a headline, picture, and two paragraphs. And we do it 24/7—you can come back morning, noon, night (and in between) for something new that matters. Read less, know more.

Learn more »

Partnering with: Slate

View Newser on the mobile website

Supreme Court Rules Against Utah Sect