RE: Lesser protection for religious advocacy

2004-11-10 Thread Mark Graber
What about the following rule in a school. You can talk about each other's clothes and appearance, but nobody can be called ugly. Seems to be an elementary school could have that rule even though it is clearly viewpoint based discrimination. MAG Gene Summerlin [EMAIL PROTECTED] 11/09/04 11:45

RE: Lesser protection for religious advocacy

2004-11-10 Thread Gene Summerlin
Mark, That's a very good point. Of course, the school could justify the no calling people ugly rule based on the fact that name calling does not contribute to or advance the academic mission or environment of the school. Discussions of theology or religion, on the other hand, would seem to be

RE: Lesser protection for religious advocacy

2004-11-10 Thread Newsom Michael
I agree that the application of the principle has to be carefully thought through. I think that the totality of the facts in the particular case control the application. We have long understood that the rules that apply in the common schools are different than the rules that apply

RE: Lesser protection for religious advocacy

2004-11-10 Thread Newsom Michael
Could you please explain the relevance of this hypothetical to the targeted leafleting that served as the genesis of this thread? I guess that you are going to have to explain to me what discuss means. -Original Message- From: Gene Summerlin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday,

RE: Lesser protection for religious advocacy

2004-11-10 Thread Gene Summerlin
You seriously want me to explain what discuss means?!? It means to talk about. I'm not aware of other hidden or technical meanings attributed to the term. Gene Summerlin Ogborn, Summerlin Ogborn, P.C. 210 Windsor Place 330 South 10th St. Lincoln, NE 68508 402.434.8040 402.434.8044 (FAX)

RE: Lesser protection for religious advocacy

2004-11-10 Thread Robin Charlow
Maybe we should separate the two questions being asked here, to wit: 1. Can't the state regulate the use of it's property?, and 2. Can't one say that failure to do so might amount to state action? Even if the answer to the latter question is, No, that still leaves the first question. Public

RE: Lesser protection for religious advocacy

2004-11-10 Thread Mark Graber
Context matters, and the nature of discussion matters. Certainly as a matter of first impression, I do not believe a student who raises divine creation as an alternative to evolution can be disciplined (though part of my instinct is the lack of past rules. So, in absence of a school ban on

RE: UW Service requirement

2004-11-10 Thread Volokh, Eugene
Title: Message Seems to me hard to see how a university can give "community service" credit for student speech advocating controversial political viewpoints (presumably viewpoints of the student's own choice), but deny credit for student speech advocating controversial religious

Re: Lesser protection for religious advocacy

2004-11-10 Thread Ed Brayton
Pardon me for jumping in. I'm brand new to this list, but as my organization, Michigan Citizens for Science, is involved in questions of science curricula I thought I'd jump in on this particular discussion. It should probably be noted up front that I am not an attorney myself. Mark Graber

Re: UW Service requirement

2004-11-10 Thread JMHACLJ
I recall that in the briefing of the Lamb's Chapel case, the State of New York argued that religious uses of school facilities did not come within a catch-all provision of "other uses of benefit to the community." The State pressed the point this way: "Thecommunity-service/private-interest

RE: UW Service requirement

2004-11-10 Thread Volokh, Eugene
Title: Message Well, it does come back to the disagreement, but it highlights yet another problem with the "OK to discriminate against religion" school. Such discrimination often involves the government saying that some viewpoints -- religious ones -- are not a "community service," while

RE: UW Service requirement

2004-11-10 Thread Robin Charlow
Isn't this situation analogous to Rust? The government subsidizes the speech it prefers, in Rust by paying the speaker only to convey its approved messages, here by awarding academic credit only for its approved activities. Whether it's right or wrong to consider religious service community

RE: UW Service requirement

2004-11-10 Thread Volokh, Eugene
It seems to me that if the government said Community service must consist of feeding the poor, or feeding the poor, advocating for the environment, or trying to prevent violence, that would be like Rust. But when the government allows a vast range of ideological advocacy, chosen by the