Editing Summum (section)

=== Freedom of speech ===

{{see also|Pleasant Grove City v. Summum}}

Summum followers have gained attention as of late in that they have proposed that their Seven Aphorisms be placed in public places alongside the [[Ten Commandments]], specifically in several locations in [[Utah]].<ref>
{{cite news
 | first = Adam
 | last = Liptak
 | title = From Tiny Sect, Weighty Issue for Justices
 | url = https://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/11/washington/11sect.html
 | work = [[New York Times]]
 | date = November 10, 2008
 | accessdate = November 11, 2008
}}
</ref><ref>
{{cite web| url =http://www.summum.us/about/freespeech.shtml| title =Freedom of Speech| publisher =Summum| access-date =May 26, 2006| url-status =dead| archive-url =https://web.archive.org/web/20060720215832/http://www.summum.us/about/freespeech.shtml| archive-date =July 20, 2006| df =mdy-all}}
</ref> [[Christians]] and town fathers have objected, claiming that the Ten Commandments are of great historic significance to the United States, and as such are not solely a religious statement, whereas the seven aphorisms are a modern philosophy. Summum has prevailed in other litigation where the [[Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals]] ruled that Summum was denied its right to free speech and governments had engaged in discrimination.<ref>
Summum v. Callaghan. Case No. 96-4191. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals. November 29, 1997. Kansas Judicial Center. May 25, 2006. <{{cite web |url=http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1997/11/96-4191a.htm |title=96-4191a -- Summum v. Callaghan -- 11/28/1997 |access-date=2006-05-27 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070103214335/http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1997/11/96-4191a.htm |archive-date=January 3, 2007 |df=mdy-all }}>.</ref><ref>
Summum v. City of Ogden. Case No. 01-4022. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals. July 19, 2002. Kansas Judicial Center. May 25, 2006. <{{cite web |url=http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/07/01-4022.htm |title=01-4022 -- Summum v. City of Ogden -- 07/19/2002 |access-date=2006-05-27 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060811223701/http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/07/01-4022.htm |archive-date=August 11, 2006 |df=mdy-all }}>.</ref>
The governments in those cases elected to remove their Ten Commandments monument rather than allow Summum to erect its Seven Aphorisms monument.<ref name="APNews"/> However, [[Pleasant Grove, Utah]], was successful in getting the [[United States Supreme Court]] to hear their case. Their argument is that the acceptance of a monument is not an instance of a public forum where speakers may not be discriminated against, but rather a form of government speech that does not require neutral viewpoints.<ref name="WashingtonPostNews">
{{cite news
| first = Robert
| last = Barnes
| title = With the Commandments, Must City Make Room?
| date = April 1, 2008
| newspaper = The Washington Post
| url = https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/31/AR2008033102332.html?hpid=topnews
| accessdate = April 30, 2008
}}
</ref>

On February 25, 2009, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously against Summum in the ''Pleasant Grove'' case. Justice [[Samuel Alito]], in his opinion for the court, asserted that a municipality's acceptance and acquisition of a privately funded permanent monument erected in a public park while refusing to accept other privately funded permanent memorials is a valid expression of governmental speech, which is permissible and not an unconstitutional interference with the First Amendment's guarantee of free speech. According to Alito, "the display of a permanent monument in a public park" is perceived by an ordinary and reasonable observer to be an expression of values and ideas of the government, the owner of the park and the monument, even though the particular idea expressed by the monument is left to the interpretation of the individual observer. Alito made a clear distinction between forms of private speech in public parks, such as rallies and temporary holiday displays (Christmas trees and menorahs), and the government speech represented by permanent monuments. He opined that even long-winded speakers eventually go home with their leaflets and holiday displays are taken down; but permanent monuments endure and are obviously associated with their owners. Alito wrote, "cities and other jurisdictions take some care in accepting donated monuments." While Summum and its supporters attempted to persuade the Court that preventing governments from selecting monuments on the basis of content would be tenable, Justice Alito noted that such a situation would put government in the position of having to choose between accepting permanent monuments with conflicting messages that do not represent the values and ideals of the community, and removing all monuments from public space. As described by Alito, if the law accorded with Summum and its supporters, New York would have been required to accept a Statue of Autocracy from the German Empire or Imperial Russia when it accepted the [[Statue of Liberty]] from France.<ref name="SLTrib">
{{cite news| title =Supreme Court rules against Summum in Ten Commandments case| date =February 25, 2008| publisher =Salt Lake Tribune| url =http://www.sltrib.com/ci_11781464?source=rv| access-date =February 28, 2008| url-status =dead| archive-url =https://web.archive.org/web/20090228050704/http://www.sltrib.com/ci_11781464?source=rv| archive-date =February 28, 2009| df =mdy-all}}
</ref>

In a companion case, Summum requested a monument of its Seven Aphorisms be placed next to a Ten Commandments monument in Roy Park, a public park in the city of [[Duchesne, Utah]]. Following the Supreme Court's ruling in ''Pleasant Grove v. Summum'', Summum claimed the ruling opened the door for a new challenge based on church-state separation claims. Unlike Pleasant Grove, the Duchesne Ten Commandments monument was the only one in the park. Duchesne decided to move the monument to the city cemetery to avoid continuing litigation, citing counsel from their attorney who said the solitary monument would establish a religion for the city. As a result of the monument's removal from the city park, Summum's lawsuit became [[Mootness|moot]] and was dismissed.<ref name="DesNewsSummumDuchesne">{{cite news
| title = Summum wants lawsuit against Duchesne dismissed
| date = June 2, 2009
| publisher = Deseret News
| url = http://www.deseretnews.com/article/705308052/Summum-wants-lawsuit-against-Duchesne-dismissed.html
| archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20110202034751/http://www.deseretnews.com/article/705308052/Summum-wants-lawsuit-against-Duchesne-dismissed.html
| url-status = dead
| archive-date = February 2, 2011
| accessdate = October 17, 2009
}}
</ref><ref name="SLTribSummumDuchesne">
{{cite news| title =Move of Ten Commandments monument ends lawsuit against Duchesne| date =July 10, 2009| publisher =Salt Lake Tribune| url =http://www.sltrib.com/ci_12812615| access-date =October 17, 2009| url-status =dead| archive-url =https://web.archive.org/web/20110604204831/http://www.sltrib.com/ci_12812615| archive-date =June 4, 2011| df =mdy-all}}
</ref>