Chalkboard fails to hit lofty goals
Published: July 3, 2009
The choice of the chalkboard on the Charlottesville Mall for the Rudy Brunner Silver Award is a testimonial to the power of Americans affection and support for free expression.
The principle is so important and so cherished that even the poorly designed and ineffective chalkboard receives the support and affection that the actual concept merits.
The chalkboard is intended to be an educational, interactive monument to free expression but it is amazingly counterproductive. The architects chose to use cleft slate, which creates a rough surface that is difficult to write on and so discourages any comments of substance or length.
The First Amendment and a quote from Thurgood Marshall are engraved on the chalkboard but are not protected or isolated from the writing surface.
Consequently these important engravings are usually impossible to read because they are covered with meaningless graffiti.
The chalkboard itself is almost always covered with illegible, inane graffiti of zero value. The difficult but necessary issue of protected vs. unprotected speech is not addressed at all by what is supposed to be an educational tool.
The chalkboard is nothing more than a poorly designed graffiti board and does not succeed as an educational and interactive monument to free expression. It’s lots of fun though!
Kevin Cox
Charlottesville
Advertisement
Reader Reactions
The “Free Speech” monument is a metaphor for what free speech means in Central Virginia.
Those who control the chalk and erasers choose what we see, hear and read.
Remember “The Golden Rule?“ Those with the gold, make the rules: After someone has libeled you using the “Free Speech” wall, Good Luck trying to sue the people who are enabling this to happen. They have the gold. And god-forbid someone should speak out against what they call “Free Speech.“ Any ideas on how to clear your name? (Have you ever tried calling one of those telephone numbers posted there? Did you get a blow-job?)
How about that concrete platform? Charlottesville’s homage to Speakers’ Corner in Hyde Park. The ironic thing is that no-one can hear you if you try addressing the crowds while there is a concert going on in that abortion of a circus tent down there.
In Charlottesville, you get what you paid for when it comes to free speech.
Steve,
I’m happy to continue the discussion but please don’t put words into my mouth. I never said that the Thomas Jefferson Center is “encouraging libelous comments and racial and anti-semitic violence.“ You said I did, but that’s false. I did say that their neglect is permitting the posting of libel and hate speech. There’s a big difference.
I don’t believe that some people are not “bad” or that they shouldn’t be held accountable. I do think that people who write things like “kill the n*****s” and “Jews need 2 die” should be held accountable. If the owners of the chalkboard can’t perform this very difficult task, then maybe they should acknowledge their inability and remove the thing.
The chalkboard is an insignifcant forum that contributes nothing. I do wish the TJ Center would try to design and build a monument that honestly addresses the complexities of speech in our society and actually teaches people. I don’t know how that would be done but I know that the chalkboard doesn’t do it.
I never said that everything that can be abused should be prohibited. Earlier you implied I did but I didn’t. Many things that can be abused are appropriately regulated and monitored. This is how we get the most benefit with the least harm. Check your assumptions before you decide you know my beliefs.
I’m curious about something you said. You say that it’s a good design. Even the choice of cleft slate? What about the postioning of the engraving of the First Amendment? It is often covered with graffitti and can’t be read.
Also, how is the public supposed to police the chalkboard? I’ve seen plenty of things written and drawn on that board that would very likely not stand a judicial test for protected speech but they were there for days at a time. People who never see the chalkboard have been libeled on it. It’s not, and I don’t think it should be the responsibility of the public or the government. It is the responsibility of the owner, The Thomas Jefferson Center for the Protection of Free Expression.
Cordially,
Kevin Cox
Kevin, I put the question to you, because you are the one that seems to have an issue with the monument. Despite what you say, the owners are NOT encouraging libelous comments and racial and anti-semitic violence. There is no sign on the monument that says, “Please help us violate the law by writing illegal speech here on this monument.“ The owners are not responsible for what a few lawless individuals do.
This is the same lame argument that plays out time after time with other arguments. Why is it that you cannot comprehend that bad individuals do exists and they are to blame and that they should be held accountable? Why is it that you continue to blame the monument owners and not the bad guys?
I hope you don’t believe in the “there are no bad people, only misguided ones” crap.
If you do, this surely explains it all.
Let me clarify what I said before, 1) If you see someone writing illegal speech on the monument, you should call the police and have them arrested. 2) It is not the job of the police to “police” the monument. 3) It is our responsibility to protect our rights.
I believe that the monument should stand as it is. And not be turned into a controlled area because of a few lawless individuals that deface it with their illegal speech.
Lets’ just chalk this up to agree to disagree.
Have a happy 4th!
Steve,
Your question, “How would you prevent the illegal forms of speech from be written on the monument?“ should be put to the owners of the monument, The Thomas Jefferson Center for the Protection of Free Expression and to the City Council that rents them the land for the monument. It’s their responsiblity. Their neglect of their responsibility makes it possible for people to use the board to write libelous comments and to encourage racist, anti-semitic violence.
Your suggestion that citizens act as vigilantes is very troubling. It is hard though to understand just what you mean. On the one hand you say that it’s not the responsiblity of the police and then you say that citizens should have offenders arrested. Arrested by whom if not the police? Would you create a “Committee for the Public Safety?“ We have a set of laws and procedures. It’s not the job of citizen vigilantes to enforce the law.
Cordially,
Kevin Cox
Kevin, it is not a poorly designed monument. The people writing the crap you gave examples of are the ones that are in fact poorly designed. If we as a nation were to prohibit the use of everything that has been abused. We would be worst off than living in the stone age. You as a rational person should know this, because everything can be abused.
Other than removing the monument. How would you prevent the illegal forms of speech from be written on the monument? Adding text to the monument explaining what you can and cannot write will not stop this. The people who are writing this, do not care about the laws or the welfare of others.
If anyone sees an individual writing illegal forms of speech on the monument. They should have them arrested. This is not a job for the police. We are the ones that have to protect our rights from those that abuse them.
Steve _________,
Would it be okay with you if I put your full name and phone number along with a statement that you want sex with children on the chalkboard? Similar comments have appeared on that board and remained there until the maintenance cleaning. What about “Jews need 2 die?“ That was on the board, along with “Kill the n******s?“ Do you consider this free speech? Our govenment doesn’t but you’d never know this from the monument. The government does and should control speech. Lies, hate speech, speech that incites people to violence, slander are all regulated by the government and for good reason.
In 1942 the US Supreme Court addressed the issue of speech that incites violence in the case of Chaplinsky vs. State of New Hampshire. This is what they had to say, “There are certain well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which has never been thought to raise any Constitutional problem. These include the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous, and the insulting or ‘fighting’ words-those which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace. It has been well observed that such utterances are no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality.“
Teaching people that “free speech” means that it’s okay to say or write absolutely anything is incorrect. I believe that the First Amendment and the history of rulings that have defined and clarified speech in our country need to be understood. The line between what can and cannot be regulated is a fine one and needs to be clearly understood by the people if they are going to be able to direct and control our government. The monument fails miserably as a teaching tool.
I frequently speak out publicly and I treasure that right. Please don’t misrepresent my effort to challenge the poorly designed monument as an attempt to repress peoples rights under our laws.
Cordially,
Kevin Cox
Well Kevin, I see you’re taking a different tack here to attack the Free Speech Monument. But, you’re still missing the point about what free speech is all about. I guess I’ll never understand why you insist that free speech should be controlled.
Advertisement