Read Full Article (PDF)
According to the Supreme Court of the United States’ rulings in Pleasant Grove City v. Summum and Walker v. Texas Division, Sons of Confederate Veterans, Inc., there is a fundamental difference between government speech, where a governmental entity expresses its own political views on its property, and private speech on government property wherein the government only facilitates a place for private actors to speak. One key difference is the anticipated duration of the “speech.” No matter how long-winded an individual orator might be, at some point, the orator will become fatigued and stop. Thus, even when speaking on government property, such speech is temporary and, by definition, a classic example of the government facilitating private speech. Conversely, however, if the government decides to erect a monument, because the statue’s duration is presumably infinite, it becomes government speech with the obvious check of the voting public.
Jonathan C. Augustine *
* Senior Pastor, St. Joseph AME Church (Durham, NC); General Chaplain, Alpha Phi Alpha Fraternity, Inc.; Consulting Faculty, Duke University Divinity School; Missional Strategist, Duke Center for Reconciliation.