Freedom of Speech and Generally Applicable Laws
lesl at UDEL.EDU
Sat Apr 8 10:10:37 PDT 2000
wouldn't the hate crime case (Mitchell) fit the bill?
"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,
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Conlawprof