|
Oddly enough, I agree with one point that Marty
suggested: If someone is giving material or saying things to a particular
person, and that person says "please stop giving me this stuff," then the
government may generally give the recipient that sort of veto power (though
perhaps there are some viewpoint- and subject-matter neutrality requirements
here).
If the school had such a rule -- applicable to
religious proselytizers, to anti-fur proselytizers, to pro-Kerry and pro-Bush
proselytizers, and so on, and if a Jewish student made clear that he no longer
wanted to receive the material (I realize this would have been a bit harder
because of the pamphlet's anonymity, but let's set that aside for now), then the
school may properly punish people who refuse to honor this request. Cf.
Rowan. The chief reason I take this view is that it would still allow
speakers to communicate to others, who have not expressed their unwillingness,
and who might consider being persuaded. (People do change religions in
their teens, and it's at least possible that others' entreaties help persuade
some of them.)
But it doesn't sound like the school has such a rule; it sounds
like the prohibition people were discussing would have barred all future
distribution, including to people who haven't expressed a request not to receive
it.
Eugene
|
_______________________________________________ To post, send message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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.
