Re: speech and religion hypothetical

2016-04-22 Thread Steven Jamar 
My understanding of the current status of the designated public forum doctrine 
is that it would not matter whether it was a private sort of thing like a 
tuition-paid class for enrolled students or a lecture open to the public.

Steve

> On Apr 22, 2016, at 1:20 PM, Alan E Brownstein <aebrownst...@ucdavis.edu> 
> wrote:
> 
> Steve and Eugene are confirming my initial take on this issue. Does the 
> analysis change if the lecture is open to  the university community (as are 
> most such lectures by invited speakers)? It is an open lecture as opposed to 
> a class where only enrolled students are entitled to attend.
> 
> As Steve suggests, there would be a different issue if the protestors were 
> denied access to a room for their own expressive activities, but that is not 
> the case here.
> 
> Alan
> From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu 
> <mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu> 
> <religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu 
> <mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu>> on behalf of Steven Jamar 
> <stevenja...@gmail.com <mailto:stevenja...@gmail.com>>
> Sent: Friday, April 22, 2016 4:47:01 AM
> To: Law Religion & Law List
> Subject: Re: speech and religion hypothetical
>  
> 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 
>> <mailto: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/religi

Re: speech and religion hypothetical

2016-04-22 Thread Alan E Brownstein 
Steve and Eugene are confirming my initial take on this issue. Does the 
analysis change if the lecture is open to  the university community (as are 
most such lectures by invited speakers)? It is an open lecture as opposed to a 
class where only enrolled students are entitled to attend.


As Steve suggests, there would be a different issue if the protestors were 
denied access to a room for their own expressive activities, but that is not 
the case here.


Alan


From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu <religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu> 
on behalf of Steven Jamar <stevenja...@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, April 22, 2016 4:47:01 AM
To: Law Religion & Law List
Subject: Re: speech and religion hypothetical

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<mailto: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] 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

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.

Re: speech and religion hypothetical

2016-04-22 Thread Steven Jamar 
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  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 
> ] On Behalf Of Alan E Brownstein
> Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2016 9:41 PM
> To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics  >
> 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 
> 
> 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.


-- 
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.

RE: speech and religion hypothetical

2016-04-21 Thread Volokh, Eugene 
   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] On Behalf Of Alan E Brownstein
Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2016 9:41 PM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics 
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
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.