Fascinating case

[Peliasberg at AOL.COM]

This case obviously is fascinating.  I am curious as to whether Brad or
anyone thinks it would be ok, if it is clear from the context, etc of the
play that the author disapproves of the "blasphemer" character and his or her
blashphemy to conclude that the student's speech was not compelled.    Brad
stated in his last e-mail: "But is it not true that in asking her to say the
words on stage, the university is
asking her to implicitly endorse the idea that it is morally acceptable to
say those words in public?")

I ask this question because I have noticed that numerous people, of all
political and religious stripes, seem to assume that almost anything
(violence, sex, political opinions, etc.) portrayed in a piece of art
represents an endorsement of that thing by the author.   I am not attributing
that way of thinking to Brad.  I am just curious as to whether he would think
that it would be ok for the Court to determine that the speech was not
compelled if the student were being asked to say something that the author
clearly was critical of.
Peter
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/private/religionlaw/attachments/20010815/3ce85250/attachment.htm