Oh oh. Eugene and I agree completely on something! Protesters in a limited designated public forum are not engaging in protected activity. There is no constitutional right to disrupt another’s speech in such a setting.
If the school refused to give the protesters a forum at all, that would be viewpoint discrimination and would violate the constitution. Steve > On Apr 22, 2016, at 1:43 AM, Volokh, Eugene <vol...@law.ucla.edu> wrote: > > No and no. A content-neutral restriction forbidding the > disruption of speakers who have been invited by a group that has booked a > room, and thus gotten exclusive access to the room for that time, is > certainly constitutional. And religious speakers are no more and no less > protected here. > > 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 Alan E Brownstein > Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2016 9:41 PM > To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics <religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu > <mailto:religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu>> > Subject: speech and religion hypothetical > > I recognize this hypothetical, based very indirectly on a real incident, is > more speech than religion, but I hope Eugene will allow my post to go forward > in any case. > > Suppose a LGBT student group at a public university invites a guest speaker > to present a scheduled lecture in a university classroom. The campus > administration allows student groups to invite speakers and to sign up to use > campus facilities with few restrictions. It is a common practice. A group of > religious students strongly opposed to the speaker's message disrupt the > speaker's presentation after it has begun. They commandeer the front of the > room and chant anti-LGBT messages for 3 - 4 minutes. Then they leave. > (Alternatively, we can reverse the facts and have the presentation of a > religious speaker invited by a religious group of students disrupted by gay > rights proponents to a similar extent.) > > I have two questions for list members. > > 1. Is the conduct of the protestors protected by the Free Speech Clause of > the First Amendment? Does the First Amendment prevent the university from > prohibiting this kind of protest through content neutral time, place and > manner regulations and from punishing the protestors' conduct if the > regulations are disobeyed? (If you think that this is or is not protected > speech, are there particular cases you rely on to support this conclusion?) > > 2. Does the answer to the first question change in any way because religious > speakers, protestors, and messages are involved in these incidents. > > Alan Brownstein > > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 > <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. -- Prof. Steven D. Jamar Assoc. Dir. of International Programs Institute for Intellectual Property and Social Justice http://iipsj.org http://sdjlaw.org Two quotes from Louis Armstrong: "You blows who you is." "If ya ain't got it in ya, ya can't blow it out."
_______________________________________________ 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.
