Freedom of Speech and Generally Applicable Laws

[Leslie Goldstein]

wouldn't the hate crime case (Mitchell) fit the bill?
LFG

"Volokh, Eugene" wrote:

>
>
>         In at least two contexts -- aiding and abetting cases such as
> Rice v. Paladin and hostile environment harassment cases -- I've seen
> the argument that when speech is restricted pursuant to a generally
> applicable law regulating conduct, the restriction should be subject
> to no 1st Am scrutiny or at most to O'Brien scrutiny.  I believe that
> this is a mistake, where (as in the aiding and abetting cases and the
> hostile environment harassment cases) the law applies to the speech
> because of the communicative impact of the speech, and I'm writing an
> article that will try to make this point.
>
>         My question for the list is:  Have you seen this argument made
> as to other kinds of laws, too?  I'd love to analyze as many examples
> of this argument as possible; I'm already doing research on my own to
> try to find other examples, but I thought I'd also call on the list's
> membership for any help you might be kind enough to offer.
>
>         Again, I'm looking for arguments of the form "There's no
> serious constitutional problem applying this generally applicable law
> to this speech, precisely because the law is generally applicable,"
> and I'm looking for these arguments made in a situation where the law
> applies to the speech because of its communicative impact (and not,
> for instance, because the speech is loud or blocks traffic or
> otherwise causes the harm through its noncommunicative impact).
>
>         Thanks in advance,
>
>         Eugene
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/private/conlawprof/attachments/20000408/706d3b41/attachment.htm