: Menard, Richard H.
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday,
November 05, 2004 2:30 PM
To: 'Law & Religion issues for
Law Academics'
Subject: RE: Pamphlets at School
.:.
You raise a lot of good points. In response only to point
(5): The notion that proselytizing is more suspect
]
Subject: Re: Pamphlets at School
Marc Scarberry's civility point has
an appeal to it. But as the proposed cancellation of all clubs in Salt
Lake City schools, in order to avoid having to allow GLBT clubs, proved,
threatening to shut everyone down is easier than actually doing so.
A civ
The analogy is inapt. Jewish students were not targeting Jewish
students.
-Original Message-
From: Volokh, Eugene [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, November 05, 2004 12:21 PM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: Pamphlets at School
What if a black stu
kh, Eugene [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, November 05, 2004 12:10 PM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: Pamphlets at School
I think we ought to be careful in First Amendment cases -- even those
arising in government-run schools -- to find speech to be unprotected
b
the sensitivities of the targeted student audience. Cf.
Rowan.
- Original Message -
From:
Menard, Richard
H.
To: 'Law & Religion issues for Law
Academics'
Sent: Friday, November 05, 2004 2:29
PM
Subject: RE: Pamphlets at School
.:.
You raise a l
In a message dated 11/5/2004 7:58:41 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Anonymous students left pamphlets calling on students to accept Jesus on the
desks of Jewish public high school students and no other students. I have
been asked whether a school could ban religiously targete
Can a school teach respect for diversity and tolerance for difference
and teach civility and respect for others' beliefs without targeting
those who say everyone else is damned and seeking to quash such speech
on campus?
I fear that one of the problems is the desire for neat, clear,
bright-lin
m students to classmates?
Eugene
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Alan
Brownstein
Sent: Fri 11/5/2004 12:38 PM
To: marc stern; Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Cc:
Subject: RE: Pamphlets at School
for Law AcademicsSubject: Pamphlets at School
.:.
Eugene and Marc are, of
course, correct: The case is not quite as simple as I
suggested. Let me try to break down the questions they
raise:
1. Could a state prohibit private
discrimination "on a public sidewalk"
I still don't get Marty's discrimination argument. These pamphleteers
are not excluding anyone (they'd probably be happy to give the
pamphlet to anyone who wanted it). They're just choosing an
audience. What if a group of evangelical Christian teens at a public
school decided to pick five Jew
lks (but not all!) view their religion as
more fundamental, more ingrained, more personally constitutive, and more
private, than our numerous other "preferences" and personal
characteristics.
- Original Message -
From:
marc
stern
To: 'Law & Religion iss
Whoops -- accidentally sent this to CONLAWPROF instead of RELIGIONLAW; retransmitting
it here.
-Original Message-
From: Volokh, Eugene
Sent: Fri 11/5/2004 1:05 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc:
Subject: Re: Pamphlets at School
Marc Scarberry's civility point has an appeal to it. But as the proposed cancellation of all clubs in Salt Lake City schools, in order to avoid having to allow GLBT clubs, proved, threatening to shut everyone down is easier than actually doing so. A civility rule that requires students to refr
I think the real world practice of law in this area makes Marty's easy solution not nearly so easy in fact. Is a student discriminating against a Catholic if he gives her a pamphlet on why praying the rosary is a form of idol worship unless he also hands a copy of the pamphlet to the Orthodox Je
I will ask to see them. My contact described them in terms to general to be
helpful.
Marc
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lupu
Sent: Friday, November 05, 2004 1:16 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: pamphlets at school
In answering the
In answering the many good questions that have been raised in this
discussion, wouldn't it be helpful to know the precise content of the
pamphlets? Can Mark Stern help us in this regard? Surely one
cannot say that proselytizing pamphlets are per se "threatening" or
"intimidating".My own v
CTED]
-Original Message-From: Marty Lederman
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Friday, November 05, 2004
10:52 AMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Law & Religion issues for Law
AcademicsSubject: Re: Pamphlets at School
Marc's question was not whether the school could
prohibit
is done within the classroom?
Mark S. Scarberry
Pepperdine University School of Law
-Original Message-
From: Volokh, Eugene [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, November 05, 2004 9:47 AM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: Pamphlets at School
It's inte
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Alan Brownstein
Sent: Fri 11/5/2004 12:38 PM
To: marc stern; Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Cc:
Subject: RE: Pamphlets at School
Marc
is reasonable as well as genuine.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Robin Charlow
Sent: Fri 11/5/2004 11:53 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc:
Subject: Re: Pamphlets at School
Isn't there something different about a targeted distribution?
ature to Jews or Christians only, could it?
>
> Marc Stern
>
>
>
> _
>
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Marty Lederman
> Sent: Friday, November 05, 2004 11:52 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Law & Religion issues for La
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Marty Lederman
Sent: Fri 11/5/2004 11:51 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Cc:
Subject: Re: Pamphlets at School
Marc's q
In a message dated 11/5/2004 11:54:51 AM Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
a simple
prohibition on religious discrimination against students would do the
trick,
How would such a simple
prohibition work if the religion of those targeting Jewish students
requires
#x27;s veto could be justified, in the
absence of evidence that the feeling of intimidation is reasonable as well as genuine.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Robin Charlow
Sent: Fri 11/5/2004 11:53 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc:
Su
Stern
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Marty Lederman
Sent: Friday, November 05, 2004
11:52 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: Pamphlets at School
Marc's question was not whether the school could
Isn't there something different about a targeted distribution? It's not
simply speech that others might disagree with or find offensive, but
speech that could be intimidating precisely because of the targeting.
Perhaps intimidating speech would meet the standard of impinging on the
rights of othe
cases you cite go to that question.
Marc Stern
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Gene Summerlin
Sent: Friday, November 05, 2004 11:44 AM
To: 'Law & Religion issues for Law Academics'
Subject: Pamphlets at School
While th
--
From: "Gene Summerlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "'Law & Religion issues for Law Academics'"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, November 05, 2004 11:43
AM
Subject: Pamphlets at School
> While the school could potentially eliminate the distribution of
While the school could potentially eliminate the distribution of all flyers
or pamphlets as a time, place or manner restriction, I seriously doubt that
a content based prohibition on just religious speech would be upheld.
The right to free speech includes the right to distribute literature. Martin
29 matches
Mail list logo
