Fascinating case

[Rob Weinberg]

I don't see why Eugene assumes the hypo graduation writing requirement
compels speech. It's an academic exercise. By such reasoning, lawyers would
be able to avoid representing clients they found personally undesirable, by
arguing that defending or prosecuting their client's interests violated the
lawyer's rights to be free from compelled speech, particularly true in
appointed cases. I've written many a brief or made arguments to the court
that merits of which I personally disagreed with, but that were legally and
ethically in my client's best interest. And without feeling that my first
amendment rights were violated. What's the difference?

-Rob

At 12:40 PM 8/15/01 -0700, Volokh, Eugene wrote:

>         Since we're talking hypos, here's one more from a problem in the
> compelled speech unit of my textbook.  (An alternative hypo might be a
> required paper on how the legal system can better fight racial,
> religious, gender, and sexual orientation bias.)
>UCLA Law School changes its graduation requirements to require each
>student to write a graded 20-page paper on how the legal system can
>increase compliance with ethical rules.  Does this violate the student's
>right to be free from compelled speech?  Why or why not?
>
>         Note that unlike in a drama class, where usually (though not
> always) the teacher doesn't want to use the required lines as a means of
> teaching any ideology to the actor, here -- as in Barnette -- the
> requirement seems primarily aimed at influencing the student.
>
>         Eugene
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/private/religionlaw/attachments/20010815/b2d639bd/attachment.htm