What if, as is likely the case, New York's purpose in opening its schools for private uses on Sundays is not "to encourage a diversity of views from private speakers," but instead simply to generate income, whether the uses are for speech or otherwise?
On Mon, Aug 15, 2011 at 12:43 PM, Volokh, Eugene <vol...@law.ucla.edu>wrote: > Well, the state constitutional defense for the exclusion > was raised in *Widmar* as well and rejected; and the worship-nonworship > line was rejected, too. So I don’t think the play-in-the-joints argument is > consistent with *Widmar*.**** > > ** ** > > *Davey*’s response to *Rosenberger *was simply that, “The > purpose of the Promise Scholarship Program is to assist students from low- > and middle-income families with the cost of postsecondary education, not to > ‘encourage a diversity of views from private speakers.’ Our cases dealing > with speech forums are simply inapplicable.” I’m skeptical about this > analysis; but even accepting it, as we must, this case is on the * > Rosenberger*/*Widmar* side, not the *Davey* side, because according to > traditional public forum analysis one purpose of parks is precisely to > “encourage a diversity of views from private speakers.”**** > > ** ** > > Eugene**** > > ** ** > > *From:* religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [mailto: > religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] *On Behalf Of *Bezanson, Randall P > *Sent:* Monday, August 15, 2011 8:32 AM > > *To:* Law & Religion issues for Law Academics > *Subject:* RE: Widmar v. Vincent redux, though in a traditional public > forum?**** > > ** ** > > You are quite right about Locke, Eugene, but I'm not sure that that settles > the matter. Washington justified its exclusion of those studying for the > ministry on grounds of its own constitutional guarantee of separation of > church and state, and the Court accepted that this fell within the State's > power via the religion clauses' room in the joints. Logically, that seems > analogous. I remember in the old days when I was serving as counsel and > then VP at the U of Iowa, that our position was that rooms for religious > groups to gather were fine, but holding church services wasn't because it > crossed the EC line. I also realize that that was over 30 years ago and > much water has gone over the dam, maybe enough to make my old view nothing > but a quaint relic. **** > > **** > > I didn't look specifically at Widmar when I offered the room in the joints > thought, so perhaps I'm just tilting at windmills. Yet the logic via Locke > seems apt.**** > > **** > > Randy**** > ------------------------------ > > *From:* religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [ > religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] on behalf of Volokh, Eugene [ > vol...@law.ucla.edu] > *Sent:* Monday, August 15, 2011 9:45 AM > *To:* Law & Religion issues for Law Academics > *Subject:* RE: Widmar v. Vincent redux, though in a traditional public > forum?**** > > I’m not forgetting that, but my sense is that *Locke*treated > a financial subsidy for the benefit of listeners as quite different > from the *Widmar *et al. scenario of access to government property for > speakers and listeners. It certainly didn’t say anything to suggest that it > was cutting back on *Widmar*. Or am I missing something there? (*Widmar > *et al. after all also involved “old-time separationist view[s],” whether > “respectable” or not; but the Court rejected that view there, and even many > “old-time separationist[s]” signed on to the rejection.)**** > > **** > > Eugene**** > > **** > > *From:* religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [mailto: > religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] *On Behalf Of *Bezanson, Randall P > *Sent:* Monday, August 15, 2011 3:51 AM > *To:* Law & Religion issues for Law Academics > *Cc:* religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu > *Subject:* Re: Widmar v. Vincent redux, though in a traditional public > forum?**** > > **** > > Well ... Don't forget Rehnquist's "play in the joints" from Locke v. Davey, > also a Washington case, by the way. Te state's position seems like a > perfectly respectable old-time separationist view.**** > > **** > > Randy Bezanson**** > > U Iowa > > Sent from my iPad**** > > > On Aug 14, 2011, at 11:24 PM, "Volokh, Eugene" <vol...@law.ucla.edu> > wrote:**** > > Any thoughts on this incident? It sounds to me like the > church should win in *Widmar v. Vincent* – if a university can’t exclude > religious worship from a designated public forum, it surely can’t exclude it > from a traditional public forum, no? Indeed, the baptism would presumably > involve not just speech but also the immersion of a person in water (if > that’s the kind of baptism that’s involved); but I take it that this is > expressive conduct, and expressive conduct that isn’t being limited because > of some harms that supposedly flow from its physical properties (such as the > risk of drowning or some such). Or am I missing something here?**** > > **** > > Eugene**** > > **** > > *Feed:* Religion Clause > *Posted on:* Sunday, August 14, 2011 10:46 AM > *Author:* Howard Friedman > *Subject:* Washington State Denies Permit For Baptism Ceremony At State > Capitol Park**** > > **** > > In Olympia, Washington, Heritage > Park<http://www.ga.wa.gov/visitor/Parks/HP.htm>is a 24-acre state-owned park > next to the state capitol campus. The state > will issue permits for events to be held at the park. Today's Bellingham > (WA) > Herald<http://www.bellinghamherald.com/2011/08/13/2141468/state-rejects-olympia-churchs.html>reports > that the state's Department of General Administration has given > Reality Church of Olympia a permit for a barbecue and picnic to be held > today, but has denied its request to conduct a baptism along with the event. > The Department, deciding an appeal of an initial denial, said that the > state constitution bars the use of public property for religious worship. > The church had argued that its free speech and free exercise rights were > infringed by the denial.**** > > *Error! Filename not specified.***** > > > View > article...<http://religionclause.blogspot.com/2011/08/washington-state-denies-permit-for.html> > **** > > _______________________________________________ > To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu > 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 Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu > 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 Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu 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.
