Tearing down the wall
Article Abstract:
The US Supreme Court ruled in Rosenberger v. Rector of the University of Virginia that the university violated the free speech rights of a religious student newspaper by denying it funding because it had religious content, but the Court failed to decisively rule that private free speech cannot violate the Establishment Clause. The university had denied funding based on the fear that doing so would violate the separation of church and state. The court applied the neutrality principle in finding that funds should be available without regard to content, but it should also narrow application of the Establishment Clause so that it does not conflict with free speech in general..
Publication Name: Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy
Subject: Political science
ISSN: 0193-4872
Year: 1996
User Contributions:
Comment about this article or add new information about this topic:
Protecting private religious speech in the public forum
Article Abstract:
The US Supreme Court's plurality opinion in Capitol Square Review & Advisory Board v. Pinette dismissed state endorsement of religion concerns in finding that the state's rejection of an unattended display of a religious symbol in a state-established public forum violated the free speech rights of the Ohio Ku Klux Klan. Concurring justices agreed in result but were unwilling to create a bright-line rule that all religious speech in public fora would not be considered violative of the Establishment Clause. The reticence of the concurring justices means that religious speech will remain second-class.
Publication Name: Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy
Subject: Political science
ISSN: 0193-4872
Year: 1996
User Contributions:
Comment about this article or add new information about this topic:
Revealing the inadequacy of the public forum doctrine
Article Abstract:
The US Supreme Court in International Society for Krishna Consciousness, Inc v Lee relied on the inadequate public forum doctrine to uphold a ban on solicitation in New York City airports while striking down a prohibition on leafletting. Public forum analysis was intended as a means to determine whether an expression is incompatible with the normal activities of a specific place at a specific time, but has instead been applied categorically. The court should have abandoned the public forum doctrine and looked directly at the compatibility of the manner, time and place of expression.
Publication Name: Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy
Subject: Political science
ISSN: 0193-4872
Year: 1993
User Contributions:
Comment about this article or add new information about this topic:
- Abstracts: Staying alive. Bending to the storm: Palestinian options in the peace process. Rock bottom?
- Abstracts: Losing an empire, finding a role. The three pillars of order
- Abstracts: Cast down your buckets where you are. DuBois: reflections on an intellectual giant on the 125th anniversary of hisbirth
- Abstracts: Companies making a fair share difference. Suggested procedures to follow if stopped by police or law enforcement officers
- Abstracts: Hatreds, human rights, and the news: what we ignore. Religion and global affairs: religion and U.S. foreign policy