From: Salamanca, Paul E Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2014 3:28 PM To: 'Law & Religion issues for Law Academics' Subject: RE: Subject: Re: Kansas/Arizona statutes protecting for-profit businesses
Dear friends, The Supreme Court has interpreted the First Amendment to do much more than protect articulable messages. I wonder if Professor Levin's argument, which appears to reflect Spence, takes into account such decisions as Hurley and Brown (the video-game case). Surely the First Amendment protects art, which doesn't necessarily have a clear message. What's the clear message of Beethoven's Fifth Symphony? Rothko? I think a fair argument can be made that the First Amendment protects such artistic endeavors as making a fancy cake and taking clever photographs, and I can see a plausible distinction between these forms of art and renting an apartment. Paul Salamanca University of Kentucky
_______________________________________________ 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.
