Jonathan Turley op-ed about US acceptance of limitation on free expression for negative religious stereotyping
http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2009/10/column-just-say-no-to-blasphemy-laws-.html This appears to be a disastrous decision by an Obama administration that very much should know better. Mark Scarberry Pepperdine cross posted to conlawprof winmail.dat___ 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.
Re: Jonathan Turley op-ed about US acceptance of limitation on free expression for negative religious stereotyping
Does current first amendment protection under Tinker extend to children who wear T-shirts to a public school that proclaim Islam is of the Devil in the absence of material disruption to discipline under a school board policy that empowers the school to ban offensive speech? How about followup T-shirts that proclaim I.I.O.T.D.? In each case the T-shirt's front expressed a positive message about Christianity; the suspensions were based on the statement on the back. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32565118/ns/us_news-education/ http://www.alligator.org/news/local/article_e24c85fc-d078-52b6-a21e-72b95cb2f0bb.html Michael R. Masinter 3305 College Avenue Professor of Law Fort Lauderdale, FL 33314 Nova Southeastern University 954.262.6151 (voice) masin...@nova.edu954.262.3835 (fax) Quoting Scarberry, Mark mark.scarbe...@pepperdine.edu: http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2009/10/column-just-say-no-to-blasphemy-laws-.html This appears to be a disastrous decision by an Obama administration that very much should know better. Mark Scarberry Pepperdine cross posted to conlawprof ___ 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.
Re: Jonathan Turley op-ed about US acceptance of limitation on free expression for negative religious stereotyping
Far from being a disaster, this is a very positive development. By engaging with the world community this resolution is mostly a ringing endorsement of free speech and civility. Remember that even though the U.S. reserved against it, the ICCPR does already include Article 20 and even Article 19 provides for l limiting speech on certain bases. Of course any standard can be abused. And even clear law can be ignored. But aspirational resolutions to reduce hate speech and increase tolerance are to be applauded, not declared disasters.. Steven Jamar Howard Law cross-posted to religionlaw listserv On Oct 22, 2009, at 3:34 AM, Scarberry, Mark wrote: http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2009/10/column-just-say-no-to-blasphemy-laws-.html This appears to be a disastrous decision by an Obama administration that very much should know better. Mark Scarberry Pepperdine -- Prof. Steven D. Jamar vox: 202-806-8017 Associate Director, Institute of Intellectual Property and Social Justice http://iipsj.org Howard University School of Law fax: 202-806-8567 http://iipsj.com/SDJ/ Our scientific power has outrun our spiritual power. We have guided missiles and misguided man. - Martin Luther King Jr., Strength to Love, 1963 ___ 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.
Re: Jonathan Turley op-ed about US acceptance of limitation on free expression for negative religious stereotyping
That the resolution can be interpreted differently is precisely what's wrong with it. Nobody later asks what Senator so-and-so thought the bill he voted for meant, the bill becomes law and the text takes on a life of its own. While this resolution is not self-enforcing, it becomes another little blob in the pudding that is customary international law. When a court is asked to find what that law is, among other things it considers the history of international pronouncements such as this. In a close case--did the defendant's words seem likely to result in discrimination against a particular religion--such considerations could become quite important. Consequently, for the US to support such a resolution, even with fingers crossed, is a grave mistake. This is not a situation in which fine distinctions should be significant. On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 10:10 AM, Friedman, Howard M. hfri...@utnet.utoledo.edu wrote: The reality is more complex than this op-ed suggests. The resolution included language that could be interpreted differently by different sides in the debate. Islamic countries have been pressing for years to introduce the conept of defamation of religion into international law. The UN Human rRghts Council resolution (co-sponsored by the US and Egypt) does NOT use this term. Instead it speaks of racial and religious stereotyping of individuals that incites discrimination or violence. This is a concept something like that in US hate crimes laws. The crucial distinction is that religions, as opposed to individuals, do not have rights against defamation. (This is also complicated by the fact that earlier drafts of the resolution at one point referring to stereotyping used the term religon in one place where it should have used religious.) More information is at this post on Religion Clause (which has been updated to reflect the later draft that uses the term religious correctly): http://religionclause.blogspot.com/2009/10/cns-news-reports-that-on-friday-united.html * *Howard M. Friedman* Disting. Univ. Professor Emeritus University of Toledo College of Law Toledo, OH 43606-3390 Phone: (419) 530-2911, FAX (419) 530-4732 E-mail: howard.fried...@utoledo.edu * -- *From:* religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu on behalf of Scarberry, Mark *Sent:* Thu 10/22/2009 3:36 AM *To:* Law Religion issues for Law Academics *Subject:* Jonathan Turley op-ed about US acceptance of limitation on free expression for negative religious stereotyping http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2009/10/column-just-say-no-to-blasphemy-laws-.html This appears to be a disastrous decision by an Obama administration that very much should know better. Mark Scarberry Pepperdine cross posted to conlawprof ___ 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. -- Vance R. Koven Boston, MA USA vrko...@world.std.com ___ 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.
