I know of nothing in the case that suggests this. The protest was 1000
feet away from the funeral, so that makes it unlikely that it could be heard
inside. And the concurrence states that "Snyder admits he could not see the
protest"; I take it that if Snyder heard the protest, the opinion would have
mentioned it.
Eugene
> -----Original Message-----
> From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [mailto:religionlaw-
> boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Eric Rassbach
> Sent: Wednesday, March 10, 2010 10:01 AM
> To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
> Subject: RE: Cert. granted in Snyder v. Phelps.
>
>
> I am sorry if this fact has already been circulated on the list, but was the
> protest at
> issue loud enough to be heard at the location of, and during, the funeral
> ceremony? If so, would this fact pattern be analogous to disruption of a
> public
> university graduation ceremony by students protesting tuition hikes?
>
>
>
> PLEASE NOTE NEW ADDRESS
>
> Eric Rassbach
> National Litigation Director
> The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty
> 3000 K St. NW, Suite 220
> Washington, DC 20007
> USA
> +1.202.349.7214 (tel.)
> +1.202.955.0090 (fax)
> www.becketfund.org
>
> NOTICE: This e-mail is from a law firm, The Becket Fund for Religious
> Liberty,
> and is intended solely for the use of the person(s) to whom it is addressed.
> If you
> believe you received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender
> immediately,
> delete the e-mail from your computer and do not copy or disclose it to anyone
> else. If you are not an existing client of The Becket Fund, do not construe
> anything in this e-mail to make you a client unless it contains a specific
> statement
> to that effect and do not disclose anything to The Becket Fund in reply that
> you
> expect or want it to hold in confidence. If you properly received this
> e-mail as a
> client, co-counsel or retained expert of The Becket Fund, you should maintain
> its
> contents in confidence in order to preserve the attorney-client or work
> product
> privilege that may be available to protect confidentiality.
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [mailto:religionlaw-
> boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Volokh, Eugene
> Sent: Wednesday, March 10, 2010 12:25 PM
> To: 'Law & Religion issues for Law Academics'
> Subject: RE: Cert. granted in Snyder v. Phelps.
>
> I appreciate Alan's points (though I probably disagree with him on the
> bottom line), and they might have been relevant to picketing in front of the
> funeral.
> But here, as Alan's first sentence acknowledges, liability was based partly
> on the
> Web site and partly on speech a thousand feet from the funeral. I take it
> that Alan
> agrees that the first class of speech wouldn't be covered by his theory.
>
> But beyond this, let me ask: I take it that some of the attendees at
> the
> funeral -- for instance, the decedent's comrades in arms -- might indeed be
> open
> to the proposition that God disapproves of America's tolerance for
> homosexuality,
> and that God rightly retaliates against America because of that. Those are
> certainly not my views, but I can certainly imagine a considerable number of
> people, including fellow soldiers, having them (though only a tiny fraction
> would
> actually express them on the occasion of the funeral). Presumably some of
> those
> fellow soldiers, even if upset by the speech, might thus be "potentially
> willing" to
> hear it (especially since a funeral tends to draw many attendees, and not
> just a
> very small circle), just as some of the residents of Skokie might have been
> anti-
> Semites even while many others were Jews. To what extent should that be
> relevant under Alan's analysis?
>
> Eugene
>
> Alan Brownstein writes:
>
> > > Although there are important limiting facts in this
> > > case that distinguish it from a clearer "picketing
> > > at a funeral case," at its core this case raises
> > > the question of whether speakers can choose a
> > > location for their offensive speech that targets
> > > their victims in an egregiously hurtful way when
> > > alternative sites for communicating their message to
> > > the public are equally accessible and at least as
> > > likely to be heard by potentially willing listeners.
> > > I'm still thinking about the answer to that
> > > question.
> _______________________________________________
> 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.
