Behind The Veil Of Ignorance
Mcconnellm at LAW.UTAH.EDU
Mon Dec 7 18:28:51 PST 1998
With all respect to Sandy Levinson, I think he is wrong to say that
the philosophical divide between the Duncan/Gilles (and me) and Dwyer
is not large. As I understand them, Duncan/Gilles would not allow the
state to intervene except in unusual cases, where the harm to the
child is clear (as demonstrated by a consensus of society), while
Dwyer would not allow the parents to deviate from the social norm
except when there doesn't seem to be a basis for reasonable judgment.
A huge number of disputes will be decided differently under these two
very different presumptions.
Sandy's point is rather like Stanley Fish's (There Ain't No Such
Thing As Freedom of Speech, and It's a Good Thing, Too), that because
everyone agrees that at some point the state has authority to
intervene to stop socially damaging speech, that means there is no
philosophical divide between free speech advocates and those who say
the state can regulate speech as long as it has a good reason.
-- Michael McConnell (U of Utah)
More information about the Religionlaw