Anti-gay church verdict

[Steven Jamar]

Could we not ban ALL demonstrations at funerals of private people?
That would be content neutral.  And we can ban the greater, can we not
also ban the lesser?  (And you know I hate referencing a Scalian
argument!)

Steve


On 11/1/07, Conkle, Daniel O. <conkle at indiana.edu> wrote:
>
>
> Isn't this analogous to Frisby, approving a ban on targeted picketing as
> "content-neutral" even though the "privacy" interest being protected in
> Frisby was, in reality, linked in substantial part to protecting homeowners'
> from being offended by the content of picketers' speech?  In Frisby, the
> Court cited Kovacs (yes, a regulation of loudspeaker noise indeed is
> content-neutral) but also Pacifica, which plainly turned on content.    See
> also Madsen and the other, more recent anti-abortion picketing cases, also
> finding prohibitions "content-neutral" when, in reality, a good part of the
> harm being averted by the laws or injunctions in reality depended on
> content.
>
> So, yes, the interest and harm in this case in reality are linked in
> substantial part to content, albeit content in the particularly offensive
> context of a funeral, but I can well imagine the reasoning of Frisby and the
> anti-abortion picketing cases being extended to support a "content-neutral"
> conclusion.
>
>
> Dan Conkle
> *******************************************
> Daniel O. Conkle
> Robert H. McKinney Professor of Law
> Indiana University School of Law
> Bloomington, Indiana  47405
> (812) 855-4331
> fax (812) 855-0555
> e-mail conkle at indiana.edu
> *******************************************
>
-- 
Prof. Steven Jamar
Howard University School of Law