Anti-gay church verdict

[Will Linden]

That's easy for YOU to say.

At 11:33 AM 11/1/07 -0500, you wrote:

>Bsog
>
>
>Joel L. Sogol
>811 21st Ave.
>Tuscaloosa, ALabama  35401
>ph (205) 345-0966
>fx (205) 345-0971
>email:  jlsatty at wwisp.com
>
>Ben Franklin observed that truth wins a fair fight - which is why we have
>evidence rules in U.S. courts.
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: religionlaw-bounces at lists.ucla.edu
>[mailto:religionlaw-bounces at lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Steven Jamar
>Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2007 11:22 AM
>To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
>Subject: Re: Anti-gay church verdict
>
>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
>_______________________________________________
>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.
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>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.