IIED and vagueness

[Ed Darrell]

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.

Ed Darrell
Dallas

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.

Steve


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...
URL: http://lists.ucla.edu/pipermail/religionlaw/attachments/20071101/60d53aac/attachment.htm