"CHARLOTTESVILLE-The inspiration came from the mountain top: 'The will of the people is the only legitimate foundation of any government,' Thomas Jefferson wrote, 'and to protect its free expression should be our first object.'

Two hundred years later, the Jeffersonian ideal of unbridled free speech is about to be put to the test in the foothills below the Monticello estate, where the nation's third president and the author of the Declaration of Independence farmed and philosophized.

The Charlottesville City Council is considering whether to permit a private think tank to erect a giant chalkboard on public land across from City Hall as an interactive monument to free expression.

And the group does mean free. No rules would limit what could be written, and city government would be prohibited from erasing anything, no matter how objectionable.

The Thomas Jefferson Center for the Protection of Free Expression has proposed raising $150,000 for an expanse of slate 50 to 60 feet wide and seven feet high tentatively called the "Community Chalkboard." The center would maintain it by periodically erasing everything, whether highbrow poetry or sophomoric vulgarities.

The center envisions it as a lowtech forum for public discourse on the burning issues of the day. But some call it a 'graffiti board' and predict that it will litter the landscape and the mind with earthy, vituperative jottings unsuitable for children and polite company.

Even its supporters acknowledge obscenities, character assassinations, racial and ethnic slurs and crudest expressions of hate are bound to end up on the board in most prominent spot in town.

'That's not necessarily a reason to erect the monument,' said George King, a former president of Charlottesville branch of the NAACP and a member of a committe that picked the winning design. 'The purpose of the monument is to foster exchanges of views, not to trumpet what we agree on. It's really quite bold.'

Whether or not the City Council approves the project, it already is provoking the kind of vigorous debates sponsors envision.

At an overflow public hearing last week, the proposal was supported by conservatives who quoted liberal Supreme Court justices and liberals defended the right to engage in free speech. Mayor James Blake Caravati said he has been deluged with e-mail about it, most of it negative. And on a small slate model of the in the main public library someone has scribbled in chalk, 'No. No. Not this here.'

The board's sponsors, who philosophically embrace all criticism as the embodiment of their cause, believe the fears are overblown.

'We're not naive. We know there's going to be some offensive writing on the wall,' said J. Joshua Wheeler, associate director of the Jefferson Center. 'The question is, do we just tolerate free expression or welcome it?'

If any place would welcome free expression, it's Charlottesville. The town of 40,000 is home to the University of Virginia. City Hall is decorated with renderings of James Madison, James Monroe and Jefferson, who lived and worked near here and belonged to the local bar association.

When the Jefferson Center held a design contest for a monument celebrating the rights enshrined in the first ammendment, the entry of local architects Robert Winstead and Peter O'Shea stood out. The 30 other contestants proposed speakers podiums or traditional statues of free speech heroes such as Jefferson.

Winstead, an architect, thought a monument to a principle should use 'constructive symbolism' to engage people who look at it, like the Vietnam Veterans Memorial and the Statue of Liberty.

The chalkboard they dreamed up would have a massive tray for chalk. They hope people would counter of offensive messages with responses, instead of merely erasing them.

'We tried to take the comfortable familiarity of a school chalkboard and use it in a confrontational way,' said O'Shea, 34. 'It should not only encourage but require you to write something instead of walking down the street keeping your opinion to yourself.'

Both architects are fathers and realize their design will invite writings they wouldn't want their young children to see.

'I'll take it as an opporbinity to educate my kids that this is the price we pay,' Winstead, 32, said. 'This is the way we're unique. It sets us apart from other places in the world. If we want to be able to address our government freely, we can't pick and choose the expression.'

The mayor says his concerns that the chalkboard would degenerate into a wall of graffiti are outweighed by his belief that more people will write messages about issues and policies.

'I'm an official, and I want it,' Caravati said. 'I don't care if people call me a butthead or an Italian, whatever, as long as there's a message. Every politician needs all the help he can get.'

Local celebrities, including actress Sissy Spacek, poet Rita Dove and author Rita Mae Brown, have written letters of support.

'My only request is that participants have a sense of humor,' Brown wrote. 'Freedom demands constant vigilance against the dull, the pretentious and the bad liar. At least good liars have amusement value.'

But some residents, including many City Hall workers, fear that disgruntled residents with gripes about city government will express their displeasure in raw excoriations on the board just outside the building's front door.

'Why give them an invitation?' said Barbara Ronan, a paralegal for the city 'If people write on buildings, it's a crime. This just encourages it. People will tend to write obscenities.'

It's just too big a risk said Barbara Merriwether, a retired educator who grew up in Mississipi.

'There will be hate messages, messages of intolerance,' said Merriwether, who spoke out against the board at the public hearing. 'My white friends think it's going to happen, too. It's in our society already. What's the purpose of inviting it?'

The debate has produced some surprising evocations of legal precedents. John W. Whitehead, president of the conservative Rutherford Institute, backs up his support for the monument with quotations from Supreme Court opinions on free speech by liberal justices William 0. Douglas and Louis D. Brandeis.

'Obscene words are on TV, in the movies, everywhere,' he said. 'You can always go up and erase it. Thatt creates debate. That's healthy. But do you deny a forum because you might see something you don't agree with? Free speech survives because of tolerance that allows intolerance to go up. It's so unique'" (Carol Morello, The Washington Post, February 11, 2001).

"A proposal to build a downtown monument to free expression was met with overwhelming support at a Charlottesville City Council public hearing on Feb. 5.

Even a few celebrities, including Rita Dove, Rita Mae Brown and Sissy Spacek, wrote letters to council to express their support for the monument - the brainchild of the Thomas Jefferson Center for the Protection of Free Expression.

The monument design, which led some supporters to compare it to the Vietnam War Memorial in Washington, D.C., features two separate parts: a podium for impromptu or planned speeches and a "community chalkboard."

The chalkboard would be 60 feet long and 7 feet wide and would provide the opportunity for free expression either through art or writing, or by choosing to erase the comments of others,

'The design is contemporary and interactive in a town full of stiff men up on pedestals,' said Bill Chapman.

Chapman was one of more than 20 people who spoke in support of the monument. Only two people - at a meeting that packed the council chambers to overflowing - spoke in opposition to the monument, both citing concerns over the potentially offensive nature of language and artwork that could be expressed on the chalkboard.

'I think it's going to be a major problem,' said Barbara Ronan, who suggested that city council use a small chalkboard outside City Hall for a trial run before making a decision.

'The First Amendment protects offensive speech. It applies not only to our own expression, but to those we despise,' said John Whitehead, founder and president of the Rutherford Institute, an Albemarle County-based organization dedicated to the preservation of human and civil rights.

The monument, Whitehead said, would 'promote free expression and give the average citizen the means to speak.'

'By erecting such edifices to freedom, we respect and encourage that right,' Whitehead said.

City councilors were vocally supportive of the concept of the interactive monument.

'A lot of us got into politics because of the First Amendment and the desire to protect people's rights,' Councilor David Toscano said. 'How can we fight against that?'

'I'm delighted to support the concept. I believe we have nothing to fear,' Councilor Meredith Richards said.

Richards said she is concerned, though, about the location opposite the main entrance to City Hall.

'It's so evident and prominent ... it could distract from the purpose,' Richards said.

Council did not vote on the proposal after the Feb. 5 hearing. It will revisit the topic at an upcoming meeting, likely the meeting scheduled for Feb. 19" (The Observer, February 14, 2001).