Wow, that really is a remarkable First Amendment position: The
government is constitutionally permitted to ban antigay speech (all
antigay speech? some antigay speech? only antigay speech at funerals?),
but I take it constitutionally forbidden from banning progay speech,
anticapitalist speech, anti-Christian speech, and so on. Might as well
chuck all the Court's pretensions to viewpoint neutrality out the window
if that sort of exception is accepted (though fortunately I can't count
a single vote for it on today's Court).
Eugene
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
> Newsom Michael
> Sent: Friday, November 02, 2007 11:29 AM
> To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
> Subject: RE: Is First Amendment viewpoint-discriminatory
> against antigay speech
>
> David has it right: a compelling governmental interest in
> protecting a discrete and insular minority -- one that is
> routinely victimized.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David Cruz
> Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2007 8:12 PM
> To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
> Subject: RE: Is First Amendment viewpoint-discriminatory
> against antigay speech
>
> I too found that comment a little cryptic. If Michael meant
> to be doctrinal rather than just attitudinally predictive, my
> guess would be that he didn't mean that a different First
> Amendment rule would apply, but that those decisions might
> somehow justify a conclusion that there's a compelling
> governmental interest present. But it wasn't at all clear to
> me, so perhaps Michael might clarify.
>
> David B. Cruz
> Professor of Law
> University of Southern California Gould School of Law Los
> Angeles, CA 90089-0071 U.S.A.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
> Volokh, Eugene
> Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2007 4:43 PM
> To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
> Subject: Is First Amendment viewpoint-discriminatory against
> antigay speech
>
> I'm puzzled -- do Romer and Lawrence really justify not
> just protection of gays against governmental discrimination,
> but a different First Amendment rule for antigay speech than
> for pro-gay-rights speech or a wide range of other speech?
>
> Eugene
>
> Michael Newsom writes:
>
> > That said, I have no idea of what the Court would do with
> this case,
> > but my guess is that the Court would overturn the jury verdict 5-4,
> > although Kennedy, on the strength of Romer and Lawrence, might vote
> > with the moderates and the case would come out the other
> way, 5-4 to
> > uphold the jury verdict (although the punitive damages might be
> > reduced, the Court likely to send a signal, I think, in the Valdez
> > case that it is prepared to rein in punitive damages).
> _______________________________________________
> To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To
> subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
> http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
>
> Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be
> viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read
> messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives;
> and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the
> messages to others.
>
> _______________________________________________
> To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To
> subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
> http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
>
> Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be
> viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read
> messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives;
> and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the
> messages to others.
>
> _______________________________________________
> To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To
> subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
> http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
>
> Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be
> viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read
> messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives;
> and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the
> messages to others.
>
_______________________________________________
To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private.
Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can
read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the
messages to others.
