AROUND the University and in Char- lottesville, we like to quote Thomas Jefferson. From daily exercise to self-governance, we use "what Mr. Jefferson would have wanted" to justify anything we want to do. Unfortunately, however, we sometimes take a little too much license with our founder's legacy.
Among many other things, Mr. Jefferson is famous for his unflinching support of free expression, which is why a pro-free speech think tank calls itself the Thomas Jefferson Center for the Protection of Free Expression. But instead of honoring him with a statue, the group has proposed a "community chalkboard" to be built across from City Hall. The proposed chalkboard is unnecessary and detrimental to Charlottesville.
|
The center decided to build a monument to free expression in Charlottesville and invited submissions for its design. Most entries were sculptures of some type, but the winning design was a 65-foot long chalkboard, complete with free chalk, which can be used by anyone with an opinion to express. The center would pay for the monument, but it would be placed on public land. The city would agree to relinquish control of what is written on the board, with only the center periodically erasing everything to make room for new comments.
Free speech in the abstract is a good thing, but plenty of opportunities for self-expression already exist in Charlottesville. Just as the University's buildings abound with bulletin boards, many local businesses, especially on the Downtown mall and the Corner, feature bulletin boards where anyone can post flyers of their choosing. These postings span a wide spectrum of content, eloquence and taste. These boards provide a way for people to express themselves, but do not force others to see expression they may find offensive.
The chalkboard does not do this. Granted, the chalkboard would provide a much more visible way to engage in the center's vision of "a low-tech forum for public discourse on ... issues of the day" ("Free Speech Hits a Wall," The Washington Post, Feb. 11) than the newsstand outside local coffee shops. But more visible expression is not always a good thing.
Putting up flyers requires thought, and anyone who fears being offended can simply avoid bulletin boards. With the new chalkboard, individuals can force others to see their spontaneous ranting and ravings, as opposed to well-thought discourse. More than likely, the truly thoughtful and constructive expressions of opinion about city problems will be outnumbered by juvenile and petulant remarks similar to those found in junior high bathrooms.
Moreover, once obscenities and other objectionable speech emerge, the community is stuck with them. Proponents of the chalkboard argue that the expressions are not harmful because they are not permanent, since the center will periodically erase everything.
Such a policy has its own problems. If someone puts up a particularly controversial comment, for example a racist slogan, does this suddenly become the day that the center decides to clean it off? Even if cleaning off the board after a controversial posting happens by coincidence, there would still be consternation if the statement had supporters.
Aside from problems with the bulletin board itself, allowing a private interest group to use public land to further its ends raises a troubling precedent. Most people probably approve of a center that promotes free expression. But what about the groups the majority finds objectionable? Do we let them use public land to erect their own shrines? Letting one group use public land means all groups get to use it, or the idea of free speech for any and all would be undermined.
This may seem far-fetched, but the idea of equal access is actually an important part of free-speech law. It seemed like a great moneymaking idea when the Virginia Assembly allowed nonprofits to create their own special license plate designs to raise money until white supremacists decided they wanted a license plate too. State officials found it morally repugnant, but a court ruled if one group could sell a license plate, so could everybody else. Getting into the business of trying to provide a forum for everyone to speak is a slippery slope the city should avoid.
Although a community chalkboard may seem like a hip idea, it addresses a need that doesn't exist and will cause major headaches for the city and the board's sponsor. It's true that Mr. Jefferson believed in the will of the people and the free expression of that will. At the same time, the First Amendment was created to allow us to argue with each other free of government repression, not to encourage graffiti. Let's hope the City Council can figure out the difference.
(Elizabeth Managan's column appears Tuesdays in The Cavalier Daily. She can be reached at eam3y@virginia.edu.)
Read More
PARTING SHOT: Does this even matter?
By Jacob Tisdale | 6 hours agoIndividuals and communities can use sports to inspire, to hold space, to heal, to break molds, to change narratives, to honor faith or to come home.
PARTING SHOT: Sometimes it’s okay to fake a smile
By Alexandra Holmes | YesterdayI surrounded myself with people who were so enthusiastic about the University and its potential, that after a while, it was impossible not to feel their passion and their convictions rub off on me.
PARTING SHOT: Girl, what did you expect?
By Cecy Juárez | 2 days agoAdvocate for yourself unabashedly, even and especially when you feel like you don’t belong.
