The Supreme Court is hearing arguments about whether Pleasant Grove must place a monument from a religious group in Pioneer Park. We hope the court settles this issue and protects free speech without creating more headaches.

In 1971, a fraternal organization gave Pleasant Grove a monument with the Ten Commandments on it. For decades it sat in an inconspicuous spot in Pioneer Park, near other artifacts from the city's history, without drawing any notable attention.

Until 2003.

Then a Salt Lake City-based religious organization called Summum said it wanted to erect a monument in the park displaying its "Seven Aphorisms."

The group claims its monument would be a fitting counterpoint to the Ten Commandments. Summum's principles, an amalgam of New Age adages, are believed to have been given to Moses first, but that Moses realized the Israelites needed simpler commands. So he smashed those tablets, and returned with the better-known list.

Pleasant Grove gave the Summum request a thumbs-down. Ten cities, 14 states and the U.S. government are on the city's side. These bodies worry that a ruling against Pleasant Grove could force governments on all levels to accept any memorials and monuments any group wants to donate.

The city started out on shaky ground, however, by providing a dubious rationale for denying the Summum gift. The city has since argued that the rather cozy confines of Pioneer Park could be overrun by monuments dedicated to all manner of causes, though there's been no clamor from other. Nor does the otherwise quiet Utah Valley community seem a magnet for such displays.

City officials said objects in the park had to be related to the city's history, or had to be donated by groups with long-standing ties to the community. But since Moses isn't one of the founders of Pleasant Grove, it's hard to see why the Ten Commandments are specific to the city's history. And it also seems doubtful that the city would have turned down the gift from an outside group. But it did turn down Summum, perhaps because it espouses esoteric beliefs.

A core First Amendment principle is that a government can't suppress speech based solely on its content. It can't give Democrats a permit to hold a rally in the park, while denying Republicans a chance to do the same. The same goes here.

To look at this more deeply, two key questions arise in the legal arguments.

The first is whether Pioneer Park is a public forum in which free speech must be given the widest possible latitude.

Parks have long been considered proper places for debate, whether for speeches by candidates or for lone orators to climb on a soap box. And speech can include objects: war memorials, for example, convey messages about patriotism and history. So it seems clear that Pleasant Grove's park is a public forum.

The second and more dangerous question is whether a donated monument represents public or government speech.

Government has wider leeway to control its own speech. For instance, a mayor speaking to a city council doesn't have to give equal time to everyone who wants it. Moreover, a government can accept a gift and adopt its message. France gave America the Statue of Liberty, and the government endorses its message of freedom. It would be absurd to think we'd also have to accept, say, a Statue of Tyranny from a fascist or communist state.

Pleasant Grove's government argues that it can adopt its own speech, and it doesn't have to provide equal space to Summum.

But there's a legal booby trap in that. Pleasant City may be running afoul of the First Amendment's ban on government sponsorship of specific religious views.

Summum hasn't raised that one, probably because it wants to publicize its own religious principles. It's easy to imagine, however, a group of atheists responding that the city is violating its right to government neutrality on religious views. If Pleasant Grove can reject the Summum donation, it may find itself being sued to get rid of the original monument.

We can only hope the Supreme Court doesn't muddy the water. While the Supreme Court building in Washington is itself adorned with religious iconography and language, there's not enough room on the marble to include the views of all religions. In effect, some religions are represented, others are rejected.

Could such an argument hold water in Pleasant Grove? Stay tuned.