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) 402.730.5344 (Mobile) www.osolaw.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] -----Original Message----- From: Newsom Michael [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, November 10, 2004 11:01 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Law & Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: RE: Lesser protection for religious advocacy 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, November 09, 2004 6:18 PM To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: RE: Lesser protection for religious advocacy Professor Newsome, Would it be constitutional, in your opinion, for a school to pass and enforce a rule which stated, "Students may not discuss any matters relating to religion or theology while on school grounds, whether such discussions occur as part of a class discussion or as part of a private conversation between students and/or faculty." Gene Summerlin Ogborn, Summerlin & Ogborn, P.C. 210 Windsor Place 330 South 10th St. Lincoln, NE 68508 402.434.8040 402.434.8044 (FAX) 402.730.5344 (Mobile) www.osolaw.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Newsom Michael Sent: Tuesday, November 09, 2004 3:25 PM To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: RE: Lesser protection for religious advocacy Well that is the question. Some people believe that schools should not be religious-free zones, and one of their arguments in support of that position -- apart from Protestant Empire imperatives -- is what I think is a wholly exaggerated and unwarranted view of what the Free Speech clause requires. -----Original Message----- From: Mark Graber [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, November 05, 2004 6:03 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Lesser protection for religious advocacy but schools are religious-free zones. MAG _______________________________________________ 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. _______________________________________________ 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. _______________________________________________ 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.
