>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 07/18/03 10:44AM >>>
Isn't the NAMBLA case analogous to the NY police racist float case? In
both instances, the government is taking speech/association and using it to
infer a risk of misbehavior on the job.
In the NAMBLA case the court seemed to focus on the risk of job -related
problems due to public reaction rather than on the risk of job-related misbehavior by
the teacher. The probable parents' reaction (there were threats to remove large
numbers of kids from the highly selective school) and the probable kids' reaction
(fear of being alone with or seeking out the teacher for academic assistance) were
thought to render the teacher less effective at this job and to pose a threat to the
continued existence and functioning of the school, WHETHER OR NOT there was any risk
of the teacher's misbehavior.
As for the Muslim professor in Florida, even if he was fired because of the
public reaction to his views, one might contrast the two instances of public reaction
on "reasonableness" grounds. Although this is surely a subjective assessment, perhaps
it is more reasonable for parents to fear an avowed pedophile teaching their high
school kids than for a university community to fear a Muslim college professor who
expresses anti-American sentiments. In addition, the violent public reaction in
Florida sounds like illegal activity, which presumably the state had some obligation
to prevent, while the threatened nonviolent public reaction in the Bronx Science case
did not involve activity the state had any obligation to prevent.
Robin Charlow
Hofstra University School of Law
Frank Cross
Herbert D. Kelleher Centennial Professor of Business Law
CBA 5.202
University of Texas at Austin
Austin, TX 78712
