No, not remarkable. Viewpoint neutrality is a chimera and an illusion, in my opinion. I do agree that the Court is not likely to agree, but that does not mean that the Court is right, but merely that the Court has spoken -- wrongheadedly.
-----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Volokh, Eugene Sent: Friday, November 02, 2007 2:56 PM To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: RE: Is First Amendment viewpoint-discriminatory against antigay speech 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. _______________________________________________ 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.