A Hypo I Am Using in Class

[Douglas Laycock]

  The gay pride folks do not have a claim. The Free Speech Clause
creates no right to force someone else to say something -- not even
if that someone is the government. Pico was a very narrow holding. 
It involved a library, and surely not every book in the library is
government speech or the government's own message. It did not involve
purchase of books for the library.  The opinions appear to be confined
to removing books from the library because of hostility to their
content, which to some observers looks more like censorship of
existing private speech than failure to speak in the government's own
voice. And of course who knows whether the current Court would accept
Pico as a preceent.

  No one has a right to force someone else, even the government,
Quoting Rick Duncan <nebraskalawprof at yahoo.com>:

> Here is a hypo I am asking the students in my 1A class to think
about today:
>
>   Imagine a city with two displays in the public square one
December:
> a nativity scene (without plastic elves or talking wishing wells)
in
> one public park,  and a "gay pride--stop homophobia display" in a 
> second public park. Both displays provoke complaints--the nativity 
> scene by an atheist such as Mr. Newdow who, when he sees the
nativity
> display, is offended by the religious nature of the display (and 
> feels like an outsider, "not a full member of the political 
> community"); and the gay pride display by an Orthodox Jew whose 
> religious conscience is offended when he sees that display and also

> feels like an unwelcome outsider and not a respected member of the 
> political community.
>
>   The city, wishing to avoid controversy and to offend no one,
removes
> both displays.
>
>   Supporters of the gay pride display sue claiming that they are a 
> willing audience for the message of gay pride and thus, under Pico 
> and the Free Speech Clause, have a right to receive the message 
> expressed by the gay pride display without censorship imposed by
the
> city to satisfy the demands  of "hecklers" and others who don't
like
> the message.
>
>   Do the Pls have a good claim?
>
>   Rick Duncan
>
>
>
>
>
>   Rick Duncan
> Welpton Professor of Law
> University of Nebraska College of Law
> Lincoln, NE 68583-0902
>
>
> "It's a funny thing about us human beings: not many of us doubt
God's
> existence and then start sinning. Most of us sin and then start 
> doubting His existence."  --J. Budziszewski (The Revenge of 
> Conscience)
>
>   "Once again the ancient maxim is vindicated, that the perversion
of
> the best is the worst." -- Id.
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Park yourself in front of a world of choices in alternative
vehicles.
> Visit the Yahoo! Auto Green Center.

Douglas Laycock
Yale Kamisar Collegiate Professor of Law
University of Michigan Law School
625 S. State St.
Ann Arbor, MI  48109-1215
  734-647-9713
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ucla.edu/pipermail/religionlaw/attachments/20070801/cb7688a6/attachment.htm