Dear George:

I very much appreciate David RePass' response to my earlier comments. His statement made me realize that I need to clarify some of the points I was trying to make.

Mr. RePass asks the question "[h]ow can free speech coexist with censorship?" The answer is that it depends on what your definition of free speech is. Unfortunately, a number of people have the understandable but mistaken perception that the First Amendment right of free speech prohibits all forms of censorship. In pointing out that acts of private censorship do not implicate the First Amendment, I did not mean to convey the impression that such private acts are to be condoned. Rather, I was responding to the criticism of others who said that the chalkboard is an inappropriate monument to the First Amendment because private citizens have the ability to erase the comments of others. It is one thing to say that private acts of censorship are contrary to the ideal of free speech (a point that Mr. RePass makes and one with which I agree) and quite another to say it is contrary to the legal rights guaranteed under the First Amendment. To criticize the chalkboard because it allows erasing is really to criticize the chalkboard because it too accurately reflects the limits of First Amendment protection.

Given that the First Amendment does not prohibit private acts of censorship, therefore, the real issue is what kind of monument would best encourage people to live up to the ideal of free speech, i.e. to choose tolerance over censorship? Some might feel that the most effective monument to do that would be one static in nature that makes an eloquent statement about the ideals of free speech. Alternatively, others might feel that the most effective monument to free speech would be one that creates a forum in which visitors do not have the option of censoring expression that they find objectionable. Perhaps one or both of these options would be more effective than the chalkboard in promoting tolerance for the expression of others. Indeed, we considered proposals for such monuments. In the end, however, it was our judgment to take another path (for reasons I stated in my earlier comments and would like to try to elaborate here).

We felt that a static monument would not actively challenge people to think, to debate, to confront their own views on the role that free speech should play in our society. Static monuments often merely preach to the converted and are easily disregarded by those whose views you are seeking to challenge. Does anyone truly believe we would be having the discussion we are having now if we simply expressed the ideals of free speech on some fancy plaque? We wanted a monument that had the potential to change the minds of at least some of the people who are inclined to censor expression that they find objectionable.

We also considered and decided against a monument that created a forum that "required" private citizens to tolerate the expression of others. Because the First Amendment does not prohibit private acts of censorship, whether one commits such an act ultimately comes down to a matter of individual conscience and choice. We felt, therefore, that the most effective way to encourage people to choose tolerance is to actually allow them to choose it, not force tolerance upon them. Mr. RePass makes the statement that free speech and censorship are "antithetical" and that "a chalkboard with erasers would be a monument to antithesis." He is absolutely right. But that antithesis reflects the reality of our legal rights and the choice between tolerance and free speech that we as private citizens have to make over and over again. The chalkboard does not create that choice, it merely gives individuals another opportunity to exercise their judgment. Does creating that additional opportunity implicitly encourage people to censor? Admittedly, for some it might. But for the majority of people we believe that the context of a monument to free expression will challenge them to examine their views on the role that free speech should play in our society. As I said earlier in my earlier comments, we believe that the result of that examination will be to put down the eraser and pick up the chalk.

Sincerely,

Josh Wheeler (electronic mail, February 5, 2002)