IIED and vagueness
edarrell at sbcglobal.net
Thu Nov 1 13:42:30 PDT 2007
You're right, I think. It's not an answer most soldiers and religious leaders would necessarily like, but it's right.
It's more a problem in irony and public relations than law. It might work as a segment on Boston Legal, but it's not enough of a legal issue for a legal journal.
That's what I get for responding while on hold with a government agency I was arguing with.
Steven Jamar <stevenjamar at gmail.com> wrote: I'm sorry, Ed, but I'm missing the problem. Free exercise or free
speech -- is that the conflict you are positing as in conflict? If
so, I assume it is not a question directed to me since I don't think
the limitation on free speech violates the constitution even without
the free exercise overlay.
On 11/1/07, Ed Darrell wrote:
> Just out of curiosity, what happens in a hypothetical if the family of the
> soldier claims the funeral is a religious service which deserves special
> protection from such disruption? Let's assume the family has a long record
> of attending church -- oh, heck, let's assume the soldier is himself a
> Returned Missionary for the Latter-day Saints church, and that his father is
> the current bishop of the ward. Which First Amendment Right gets honored?
Prof. Steven Jamar
Howard University School of Law
To post, send message to Religionlaw at lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Religionlaw