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
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
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
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,
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)
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
13 matches
Mail list logo
