A question about the Rosenberger dissenters' position: If the
government is barred by the Establishment Clause from providing free
printing (in Rosenberger, by reimbursing printing costs) for religious
publications -- even when the program covers a wide range of
publications, religious or not -- why wouldn't the government be equally
barred from providing free access to the airwaves for religious
broadcasters (among other broadcasters)?
Is the distinction that Rosenberger involved transfer of money,
even as reimbursement, rather than simply access to property? Would it
follow that if the government also decided to reimburse nonprofit
broadcasters (including religious ones) for the costs of their
transmitters, rather than just providing free access to the airwaves,
that would be unconstitutional under the Rosenberger dissent's view? Or
is there some other distinction I'm missing?
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.
