Firing of high school teacher for NAMBLA-related political ac
tivi ty upheld
VOLOKH at mail.law.ucla.edu
Thu Feb 28 11:54:27 PST 2002
Hmm. If this approach is sound, then what speech restriction
*couldn't* be upheld under a non-linear, inexact understanding of "injury,"
"denial of rights," or "denial of equality" -- especially if advocating for
a lowering of the age of consent (which would treat children equally to
adults [though in my view quite wrongly!]) counts as "denial of equality"?
How about students being taught by a potential bourgeois-killing
revolutionary with authority over them, or a potential religious
discriminator (he's known to be deeply religious, and he belongs to a
religious group that thinks of a certain ethnic group as God's Chosen
People; or he has expressed the view that religion is the opium of the
masses) with authority over them?
Again, the court may have gotten it right here -- but I'd really
like a somewhat narrower justification for why it got it right, rather than
a justification that is so amorphous as to potentially justify a tremendous
variety of speech restrictions.
Judy Baer writes:
> Eugene, "exactly" is the wrong approach--this could fall under MacKinnon's
> idea of harm "not linearly understoof in the 'John hit Mary' sense."
> injury--students being taught by a potential sexual predator with
> authority over them
> denial or rights or equality--in the way pornography allegedly silences
> women and exposes them to sexual abuse; or that the N-word allegedly
> denies rights and/or equality to blacks
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Conlawprof