By “directed at,” do you mean “said to,” “said about,” or something else?
From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of hamilto...@aol.com Sent: Monday, March 08, 2010 12:12 PM To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu Subject: Re: Cert. granted in Snyder v. Phelps. 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<mailto: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> [mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu<mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu?>] On Behalf Of hamilto...@aol.com<mailto:hamilto...@aol.com> Sent: Monday, March 08, 2010 11:35 AM To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu<mailto: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 _______________________________________________ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu<mailto: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.
