|
Not everybody is happy. From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Ed Brayton [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote: I much appreciate the kind words
(particularly coming from the author of the conlaw book I still use and have
been using since law school). There was actually another interesting fact
about the Erica Corder case in Monument, CO that wasn't in the Fox News
story. Erica Corder's father is on the board of directors of James
Dobson's Focus on the Family which is based near there (the father's connection
to FoF is reported in the Colorado Springs Gazette). If anyone's
interested, I took my argument to the Colorado Springs Gazette online forum in
more extended written form at: http://forums.gazette.com/gazette/viewtopic.php?t=345&start=30 What I'm having difficulty figuring out, however, is
exactly where to draw the line in graduation speech preapproval cases. Does
anyone have any good citations (or opinions) on when preapproval of a message
becomes endorsement? Also, how do high schools fashion preapproval policies so
they are not arbitrary or discriminatory? I would argue that if the graduation speaker is chosen
according to some objective criteria, as when the valedictorian automatically
is invited to speak, then the school should not exercise any control over the
content of their speech at all. Then the speech is purely their own, there is no
message of endorsement, and the student can say whatever they want. Free speech
preserved, establishment clause problem eliminated, everyone hapy. |
_______________________________________________ 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.
