Setting aside the facts of this particular case, do you think that local
government could regulate "speech directed at a grieving family or decedent
during the funeral"? Thus, whether the speech is positive, negative, or
neutral with respect to the decedent, the decedent's family, or whoever, it
could be suppressed. In other words, what about a right of privacy around
funerals?
Marci
-----Original Message-----
From: Volokh, Eugene <vol...@law.ucla.edu>
To: 'religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu' <religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu>
Sent: Mon, Mar 8, 2010 3:00 pm
Subject: Re: Cert. granted in Snyder v. Phelps.
From: Volokh, Eugene
Sent: Monday, March 08, 2010 11:46 AM
To: 'religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu'
Subject: RE: Cert. granted in Snyder v. Phelps.
The trouble is that the location of the speech was (1) partly on
the Web, and (2) partly 1000 feet away from the funeral. Unless the Court is
prepared to say that any speech about a funeral that’s 1000 feet from the
funeral is regulable, the only way it can uphold this verdict is by concluding
that the “solemnity needed at funerals” is interfered with by any speech –
including speech that is actually not seen at the time by the plaintiff (the
plaintiff testified that he couldn’t see the 1000-feet-away protest) – that
harshly criticizes the decedent. So I can’t quite see how we can avoid
“looking at this from the speech side.”
Eugene
From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu
[mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of hamilto...@aol.com
Sent: Monday, March 08, 2010 11:35 AM
To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
Subject: Re: Cert. granted in Snyder v. Phelps.
I wonder if the Justices have taken the case to give guidance on what local and
state governments may do to protect funeral-goers.
Instead of looking at this from the speech side, I would tend to look at it
from the perspective of the location of the speech.
Surely government may create and enforce the conditions for solemnity needed at
funerals. Such conditions would apply whether
the content of the interfering speech (or noise) was negative as in this case
or positive (say the deceased is a rock star and the interference is coming
from groupies). Fundamental common sense says that funerals can be protected
in this way and that what has transpired in
these cases generally should be capable of being deterred.
Marci
Marci A. Hamilton
Paul R. Verkuil Chair in Public Law
Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law
Yeshiva University
_______________________________________________
o post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
o subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
ttp://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private.
nyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can
ead the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the
essages 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.
