DOCSLIB.ORG

The Redundant Free Exercise?

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Redundant Free Exercise? The Redundant Free Exercise? The Harvard community has made this article openly available. Please share how this access benefits you. Your story matters Citation Mark Tushnet, The Redundant Free Exercise?, 33 Loy. U. Chi. L. J. 71 (2002). Published Version http://lawecommons.luc.edu/luclj/vol33/iss1/4/ Citable link http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:12956300 Terms of Use This article was downloaded from Harvard University’s DASH repository, and is made available under the terms and conditions applicable to Other Posted Material, as set forth at http:// nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:dash.current.terms-of- use#LAA Loyola University Chicago Law Journal Volume 33 Article 4 Issue 1 Summer 2002 2001 The Redundant Free Exercise? Mark Tushnet Georgetown University Law Center Follow this and additional works at: http://lawecommons.luc.edu/luclj Part of the First Amendment Commons Recommended Citation Mark Tushnet, The Redundant Free Exercise?, 33 Loy. U. Chi. L. J. 71 (2002). Available at: http://lawecommons.luc.edu/luclj/vol33/iss1/4 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by LAW eCommons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Loyola University Chicago Law Journal by an authorized administrator of LAW eCommons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. The Redundant Free Exercise Clause? Mark Tushnet* I. INTRODUCTION Suppose the Free Exercise Clause were simply ripped out of the Constitution. What would change in contemporary constitutional law? Justice Kennedy has written, "[t]he Free Exercise Clause embraces a freedom of conscience and worship that has close parallels in the speech provisions of the First Amendment ....2 The parallels may be so close that the lines actually coincide. The reasons for the near-identity of the protection afforded by the Free Exercise Clause and that afforded by other constitutional provisions are founded in two doctrinal developments. 3 First, although the Free Exercise Clause could be, and * Carmack Waterhouse Professor of Constitutional Law, Georgetown University Law Center. I would like to thank Kevin Quinn, S.J., for his assistance in locating material on Roman Catholic moral teaching, Andrew Koppleman, Eugene Volokh, and participants at a Faculty Research Workshop at Georgetown University Law Center for helpful comments. I regret that personal considerations made it impossible for me to attend, and therefore to profit from the discussions at, the Loyola University Chicago School of Law Conference on Law and Religion for which this Article was prepared. 1. I put the question this way so that I can concede the importance of the Free Exercise Clause in the history of free expression law. See Capitol Square Review & Advisory Bd. v. Pinette, 515 U.S. 753 (1995). "[I]n Anglo-American history ....government suppression of speech has so commonly been directed precisely at religious speech that a free-speech clause without religion would be Hamlet without the prince." Id. at 760. I am interested not in what the Free Exercise Clause has contributed to the development of civil liberty, but what the contemporary Free Exercise Clause adds to our civil liberties. 2. Lee v. Weisman, 505 U.S. 577, 591 (1992). 3. A note on the nature of my enterprise seems appropriate. In what follows, I offer what I believe to be the most natural readings of the relevant cases. I acknowledge that there are other plausible readings, some of which would provide distinctive protection to religious liberty through the Free Exercise Clause. See, e.g., infra note 82 and accompanying text (describing a more aggressive reading of the protection afforded by the Free Exercise Clause when state laws are not "generally applicable"); see also Michael W. McConnell, The Problem of Singling Out Religion, 50 DEPAUL L. REV. 1, 3 (2000) (noting that exceptions articulated in Employment Division, Department of Human Resources v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990), "if generously interpreted, could prove to be a substantial exception" to the case's central holding). My sense is that those who offer these alternative case readings do so because they disagree with the cases' natural reading and believe that the Free Exercise Clause ought to give religious liberty more protection than the Supreme Court appears to believe it should. Loyola University Chicago Law Journal [Vol. 33 has been, interpreted differently in the past, today the Clause protects only against statutes that target religious practice for regulation. Under the notorious peyote case, Employment Division, Department of Human Resources v. Smith,4 the Clause does not require states to accommodate their neutral statutes of general applicability to religious practices.5 The present scope of the Free Exercise Clause, that is, is quite small.6 Second, other constitutional doctrines protect a wide range of actions in which religious believers engage. Much religious activity is speech, pure and simple, and therefore protected by the Free Speech Clause. The free speech doctrine includes a non-discrimination requirement, which the Supreme Court has invoked with respect to religious speech.7 Many regulations singling out religious speech for adverse treatment fall under the non-discrimination requirement. Further, much religious activity, while not conducted in words, may fairly be described as symbolic speech, triggering free speech protection. In addition, some aspects of religious practice not covered by free speech principles might be protected by a constitutional right of intimate association. Finally, a newly emerging doctrine defining a right of expressive association could provide substantial protection for the internal activities of religious organizations, where those activities are in some sense constitutive of the religious community itself.8 Thus, the protection afforded the exercise of religion by clauses other than the Free Exercise 9 Clause is relatively large. 4. Employment Div., Dep't of Human Res. v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990). 5. See infra note 29 and accompanying text (discussing the neutrality and generality requirements of enforceable laws). 6. Of course my argument would fail if the Clause's scope expanded, for example by a judicial repudiation of the peyote case. 7. Rosenberger v. Rectors & Visitors of Univ. of Va., 515 U.S. 819, 829 (1995) (holding that a university regulation prohibiting the use of funds for student religious organizations was a form of viewpoint discrimination, violating the First Amendment). 8. See infra Part III (arguing that the Free Speech Clause in combination with the Free Exercise Clause would protect religious practice left unprotected after the peyote case). 9. Steven Gey has recently argued that governments may invoke the Establishment Clause to justify restrictions on religious expression that would not be allowed were the government invoking its general police powers to restrict non-religious expression. Steven G. Gey, When Is Religious Speech Not "Free Speech"?, 2000 U. ILL. L. REV. 379, 400 (2000). I do not address Gey's argument in this Article because my concern is with what might be called the coverage of religious expression-whether it would have special constitutional weight absent the Free Exercise Clause-and not with the question of the circumstances in which limitations on such expression might be justified. In my terms, the title of Professor Gey's article is a bit misleading because the article does not address the2 question of "When is religious speech not 'free speech'?," but rather the question, "When is religious speech permissibly subject to regulation in circumstances where secular speech would not be subject to regulation?." 2001] The Redundant Free Exercise Clause? Together these observations suggest my conclusion: Contemporary constitutional doctrine may render the Free Exercise Clause redundant. 10 II. RELIGIOUS EXPRESSION AS SPEECH According to the Supreme Court, "private religious speech.., is as fully protected under the Free Speech Clause as secular private expression."'1 We must, of course, have in hand an analysis of free speech law before we can analyze the extent to which religious activities are "fully protected under the Free Speech Clause." Today there are two available structures for free speech analysis. 12 These two structures sometimes yield different results, and make sense of sets of Supreme Court decisions that differ slightly. As I will argue, they do 10. According to some approaches to constitutional interpretation, that conclusion is a reason to reject contemporary constitutional doctrine. Such approaches insist that every constitutional provision have some independent meaning. See, e.g., United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549, 588 (1995) (Thomas, J., concurring). In Lopez, Justice Thomas argues against the view that Congress has the power to regulate activities that affect interstate commerce because if it did, many of Congress' other enumerated powers under Art. I, § 8, [would be] wholly superfluous. After all, if Congress may regulate all matters that substantially affect commerce, there is no need for the Constitution to specify that Congress may enact bankruptcy laws, cl.4, or coin money and fix the standard of weights and measures, cl. 5, or punish counterfeiters of United States coin and securities, cl.6. Likewise, Congress would not need the separate authority to establish post offices and post roads, cl.7, or to grant patents and copyrights, cl.8, or to "punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas," cl.10. Id. Frederick Mark Gedicks defends a position similar to the one developed here. Frederick Mark Gedicks, Towards a Defensible Free Exercise Doctrine, GEO. WASH. L. REV. (forthcoming 2001). Professor Gedicks argues that free speech and related doctrines should be developed in ways that acknowledge the presence of a religious interest. This, Professor Gedicks argues, would avoid making the Free Exercise Clause redundant. I am not sure that it would. Professor Gedicks argues, for example, that religious expression should be treated as a form of high-value speech, but I doubt that doing so requires that we treat the fact that speech is religious as something that changes the application of standards for determining when speech is high-value.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Group Defamation Geoffrey R
    University of Chicago Law School Chicago Unbound Occasional Papers Law School Publications 1978 Group Defamation Geoffrey R. Stone Follow this and additional works at: http://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/occasional_papers Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Geoffrey R. Stone, "Group Defamation," University of Chicago Law Occasional Paper, No. 15 (1978). This Working Paper is brought to you for free and open access by the Law School Publications at Chicago Unbound. It has been accepted for inclusion in Occasional Papers by an authorized administrator of Chicago Unbound. For more information, please contact [email protected]. OCCASIONAL PAPERS FROM THE LAW SCHOOL THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO NO. 15 1978 Occasional Papers from THE LAW SCHOOL THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO Number 15 GROUP DEFAMATION Geoffrey R. Stone Copies of The liw' School Record, The Iaw Alumni Journal, and Occasional Papers from the Law School are available from William S. Hein & Company, Inc., 1285 Main Street, Buffalo, New York 14209, to whom inquiries should be addressed. Current numbers are also available on subscription from William S. Hein & Company, Inc. ('op right. 197,. Thv I niversity of CIiin go Law Sihool GROUP DEFAMATION Geoffrey R. Stone* Late this spring, the Illinois General Assembly consideredthe enactment of legislationdesigned to re-institute the crime of "group defamation" in Il- linois. On June 6, 1 had an opportunity to testify before the Judiciary II Committee of the Illinois House of Representatives concerning the propriety and constitutionalityof Senate Bill 1811, the pro- posed legislation.t Although sympathetic to the *Associate Professor of Law, University of Chicago. tSenate Bill 1811, as amended by its sponsors in the Illinois House of Representatives, provided: (a) Elements of Offense.
    [Show full text]
  • Revisiting the Right to Offend Forty Years After Cohen V. California: One Case's Legacy on First Amendment Jurisprudence Clay Calvert
    FIRST AMENDMENT LAW REVIEW Volume 10 | Issue 1 Article 2 9-1-2011 Revisiting the Right to Offend Forty Years after Cohen v. California: One Case's Legacy on First Amendment Jurisprudence Clay Calvert Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.law.unc.edu/falr Part of the First Amendment Commons Recommended Citation Clay Calvert, Revisiting the Right to Offend Forty Years after Cohen v. California: One Case's Legacy on First Amendment Jurisprudence, 10 First Amend. L. Rev. 1 (2018). Available at: http://scholarship.law.unc.edu/falr/vol10/iss1/2 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Carolina Law Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in First Amendment Law Review by an authorized editor of Carolina Law Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. REVISITING THE RIGHT TO OFFEND FORTY YEARS AFTER COHEN v. CALIFORNIA: ONE CASE'S LEGACY ON FIRST AMENDMENT JURISPRUDENCE BY CLAY CALVERT ABSTRACT This article examines the lasting legacy of the United States Supreme Court's ruling in Cohen v. California upon its fortieth anniversary. After providing a primer on the case that draws from briefs filed by both Melville Nimmer (for Robert Paul Cohen) and Michael T. Sauer (for California), the article examines how subsequent rulings by the nation's High Court were influenced by the logic and reasoning of Justice Harlan's majority opinion in Cohen. The legacy, the article illustrates, is about far more than protecting offensive expression. The article then illustrates how lower courts, at both the state and federal level, have used Cohen to articulate a veritable laundry list of principles regarding First Amendment jurisprudence.
    [Show full text]
  • Exceptions to the First Amendment
    Order Code 95-815 A CRS Report for Congress Received through the CRS Web Freedom of Speech and Press: Exceptions to the First Amendment Updated July 29, 2004 Henry Cohen Legislative Attorney American Law Division Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress Freedom of Speech and Press: Exceptions to the First Amendment Summary The First Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that “Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press....” This language restricts government both more and less than it would if it were applied literally. It restricts government more in that it applies not only to Congress, but to all branches of the federal government, and to all branches of state and local government. It restricts government less in that it provides no protection to some types of speech and only limited protection to others. This report provides an overview of the major exceptions to the First Amendment — of the ways that the Supreme Court has interpreted the guarantee of freedom of speech and press to provide no protection or only limited protection for some types of speech. For example, the Court has decided that the First Amendment provides no protection to obscenity, child pornography, or speech that constitutes “advocacy of the use of force or of law violation ... where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.” The Court has also decided that the First Amendment provides less than full protection to commercial speech, defamation (libel and slander), speech that may be harmful to children, speech broadcast on radio and television, and public employees’ speech.
    [Show full text]
  • Compelled Commercial Speech and the First Amendment
    Missouri Law Review Volume 63 Issue 4 Fall 1998 Article 2 Fall 1998 Don't Tell Me What to Say: Compelled Commercial Speech and the First Amendment Nicole B. Casarez Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.missouri.edu/mlr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Nicole B. Casarez, Don't Tell Me What to Say: Compelled Commercial Speech and the First Amendment, 63 MO. L. REV. (1998) Available at: https://scholarship.law.missouri.edu/mlr/vol63/iss4/2 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at University of Missouri School of Law Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Missouri Law Review by an authorized editor of University of Missouri School of Law Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Casarez: Casarez: Don't Tell Me What to Say: Don't Tell Me What to Say: Compelled Commercial Speech and the First Amendment Nicole B. Cdsarez* I. INTRODUCTION Advertising has always presented a conundrum in First Amendment analysis. As a business activity, advertising should be regulable by the state subject only to substantive due process review.' On the other hand, advertising is also a form of expression that raises important questions regarding freedom of speech.2 Sixty years ago, the Supreme Court considered advertising as nothing more than one aspect of commerce. Advertising restrictions were seen as economic regulations that did not involve First Amendment issues In the 1970s, however, the Court began referring to advertising as "commercial speech"4 and recognized that it was not "wholly outside the protection of the First * Associate Professor, University of St.
    [Show full text]
  • The “Law of the First Amendment” Revisited Robert A
    Wayne State University Law Faculty Research Publications Law School 1-1-2013 The “Law of the First Amendment” Revisited Robert A. Sedler Wayne State University, [email protected] Recommended Citation Robert A. Sedler, The “Law of the First Amendment” Revisited, 58 Wayne L. Rev. 1003 (2013). Available at: http://digitalcommons.wayne.edu/lawfrp/93 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law School at DigitalCommons@WayneState. It has been accepted for inclusion in Law Faculty Research Publications by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@WayneState. THE "LAW OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT" REVISITED ROBERT A. SEDLERt Table of Contents I. INTRODUCTION ....................................... ..... 1004 II. GENERAL OBSERVATIONS ABOUT FIRST AMENDMENT ANALYSIS ........................................ ....... 1009 A. Freedom of Expressionfor First Amendment Purposes .......... 1009 1. Unlawful Verbal Acts .................... ..... 1010 2. Obscenity. ............................ ..... 1013 3. Child Pornography. ...................... ..... 1014 4. Government Speech ................... ........... 1015 B. A Bit of FirstAmendment Theory: The Marketplace of Ideas ...............................1017 C. A Look Back: The History of the First Amendment and Its Function in the American ConstitutionalSystem..................... 1022 III. THE "LAW OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT" ..................... 1028 A. The Meaning and Operation of the "Law of the First Amendment" .............................. 1028 B. The Chilling Effect Concept...................1.
    [Show full text]
  • 3.3 First Amendment: Freedom of Speech
    Unit 3 CIVIL LIBERTIES and CIVIL RIGHTS CITIZENU.ORG 3.3 First Amendment: Freedom of Speech ESSENTIALS 1. In Schenck (1919) the Supreme Court recognized that there are limits to our speech. In this case speech was limited because of a “clear and present danger.” 2. The Supreme Court has held that symbolic speech is protected by the 1st Amendment - Tinker (1969). 3. The Court has consistently limited obscene speech. Obscenity is defined locally. 1. What is the underlying idea of this cartoon? 2. Do the wealthy unfairly have access to greater speech? The Supreme Court has held that symbolic speech is protected by the First Amendment. In Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District (1969) the Court ruled that public- school students could wear black armbands in school to protest the Vietnam War. The standard centered around whether or not the students were disruptive to the learning process. Check out these other school speech cases. How would you have decided? Bethel School District v. Fraser (1986) Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier (1988) Morse v. Frederick (2007) “It can hardly be argued that either students or teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate.” Justice Fortas in Tinker (1969) How best to balance the words of Fortas with “in loco parentis” rights? 1 Schenck v. U.S. (1919) The United States entered World War I on the side of the Allies in 1917, after several years of maintaining its neutrality. President Woodrow Wilson had campaigned for reelection in 1916 on the slogan “He Kept Us Out of War.” This abrupt change in policy meant there were many Americans who disagreed with the decision to go to war.
    [Show full text]
  • What We'll Do in This Course the Historical Evolution of the First
    10/9/2019 Historical Evolution of the First Amendment – Supreme Court Cases Day 2 65 65 What We’ll Do In This Course • Day 1: Philosophical origins of the First Amendment • Day 2: 200+ years of Supreme Court Cases • Day 3: Current First Amendment Issues 66 66 The Historical Evolution of the First Amendment –Three eras of Court History – Pre-Civil War – Post-Civil War – 20th century 68 68 1 10/9/2019 Current Understanding of the First Amendment – “The First Amendment is [still] a work in progress.” – Early Americans demanded speech protections, but those protections were not consistently enforced. – The Sedition Act was abandoned by Congessional action. – John Stuart Mill (mid-19th century) – Marketplace of ideas – expressive freedom as a means of discovering truth 69 69 Current Understanding of the First Amendment – Judicial interpretation of the First Amendment began in earnest toward the end of WWI. – The courts have concluded that expressive freedom’s primary value is ensuring an informed electorate. – The courts gives political speech the highest status, provided lesser but not insignificant protection to commercial speech, and categorically devalues fighting words and obscenity. 70 70 Current Understanding of the First Amendment –Freedom of Association – can the government force an organization to accept members it does not want? – Roberts v. United States Jaycees (1984) 71 71 2 10/9/2019 Reasons Supreme Court Takes Cases – Procedural Oversight – Did the lower court follow the rules? – Statutory Interpretation – What does the relevant law mean in connection to this set of facts? – Is the law constitutional? 72 72 Name of Case: People involved: Reynolds v.
    [Show full text]
  • Basic Free Speech Analysis Russell W
    Santa Clara Law Review Volume 31 | Number 4 Article 2 1-1-1991 Basic Free Speech Analysis Russell W. Galloway Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/lawreview Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Russell W. Galloway, Basic Free Speech Analysis, 31 Santa Clara L. Rev. 883 (1991). Available at: http://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/lawreview/vol31/iss4/2 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at Santa Clara Law Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Santa Clara Law Review by an authorized administrator of Santa Clara Law Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. BASIC FREE SPEECH ANALYSIS Russell W. Galloway* I. INTRODUCTION The first amendment protects freedom of expression, a composite constitutional right that includes freedom of speech, freedom of the press, the right to assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances, and the implied free- doms of expressive and private association.' Free speech2 is the matrix of all other freedoms, because it is indispensable to an informed citizenry, the foundation of democratic govern- ment. Free speech is also fundamental because it aids the dis- covery of truth and is a prerequisite to individual self-realization. But how does free speech work? This article describes the basic structure of free speech analysis. The purpose is to help law students, lawyers, and judges understand and apply the diverse strands of Supreme Court law in this complex and important constitutional field.' * Professor, Santa Clara University School of Law; J.D., 1965, Columbia University School of Law; Director, Supreme Court History Project; member of the California bar.
    [Show full text]
  • University of Nevada, Reno Administrator Speech Within PK-12
    University of Nevada, Reno Administrator Speech within PK-12 Public Education Systems: An Analysis of the Speech Rights of School Administrators in the Wake of Recent Federal Court Decisions Post Garcetti A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Educational Leadership By David A. Brackett Dr. George Perreault/Dissertation Advisor August 2014 Copyright © by David A. Brackett 2014 All Rights Reserved THE GRADUATE SCHOOL We recommend that the dissertation prepared under our supervision by DAVID ALTON MICHAEL BRACKETT Entitled Administrator Speech Within Pk-12 Public Education Systems: An Analysis Of The Speech Rights Of School Administrators In The Wake Of Recent Federal Court Decisions Post Garcetti be accepted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Dr. George Perreault, Advisor Dr. William E. Sparkman, Committee Member Dr. Rita M. Laden, Committee Member Dr. Cleborne D. Maddux, Committee Member Dr. Marsha H. Read, Graduate School Representative David W. Zeh, Ph. D., Dean, Graduate School August, 2014 i Abstract Competing interests exist within PK-12 public education systems regarding the extent the First Amendment protects expression: individuals have the right to express themselves, while public educations systems have the right to limit expression in order for the public entity to operate effectively and efficiently (Pickering v. Board of Education, 1968; Connick v. Myers, 1983). In Tinker (1969), the Supreme Court stated, “It can hardly be argued that either students or teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate.” Subsequent decisions, however, have limited the extent of First Amendment protection afforded to government employees, including those in public schools.
    [Show full text]
  • The Power of Individual and Governmental Symbolic Speech
    The University of Akron IdeaExchange@UAkron Akron Law Review Akron Law Journals July 2015 Of Flags And Menorahs: The oP wer Of Individual And Governmental Symbolic Speech Mark F. Kohler Please take a moment to share how this work helps you through this survey. Your feedback will be important as we plan further development of our repository. Follow this and additional works at: http://ideaexchange.uakron.edu/akronlawreview Part of the Constitutional Law Commons, First Amendment Commons, Jurisprudence Commons, Religion Law Commons, and the Supreme Court of the United States Commons Recommended Citation Kohler, Mark F. (1990) "Of Flags And Menorahs: The oP wer Of Individual And Governmental Symbolic Speech," Akron Law Review: Vol. 23 : Iss. 3 , Article 3. Available at: http://ideaexchange.uakron.edu/akronlawreview/vol23/iss3/3 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Akron Law Journals at IdeaExchange@UAkron, the institutional repository of The nivU ersity of Akron in Akron, Ohio, USA. It has been accepted for inclusion in Akron Law Review by an authorized administrator of IdeaExchange@UAkron. For more information, please contact [email protected], [email protected]. OFKohler: FLAGS Individual AND And Governmental MENORAHS: Symbolic Speech THE POWER OF INDIVIDUAL AND GOVERNMENTAL SYMBOLIC SPEECH by MARK F. KOHLER* ACTIONS SPEAK LOUDER THAN WORDS During the summer of 1989, the U.S. Supreme Court handed down its decisions in two seemingly unrelated cases. In Texas v. Johnson,' it overturned the conviction of an individual charged with having desecrated the American flag. In County of Allegheny v. American Civil Liberties Union Greater Pittsburgh Chap- ter,2 it held that the erection of a private nativity creche in a county courthouse violated the Establishment Clause but that a display of a Menorah along side of a Christmas tree did not.
    [Show full text]
  • Dancing Around the First Amendment: Symbolic Speech After Barnes V
    Tulsa Law Review Volume 28 Issue 1 Fall 1992 Dancing Around the First Amendment: Symbolic Speech after Barnes v. Glen Theatre, Inc. Eric Morrow Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.law.utulsa.edu/tlr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Eric Morrow, Dancing Around the First Amendment: Symbolic Speech after Barnes v. Glen Theatre, Inc., 28 Tulsa L. J. 113 (2013). Available at: https://digitalcommons.law.utulsa.edu/tlr/vol28/iss1/4 This Casenote/Comment is brought to you for free and open access by TU Law Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Tulsa Law Review by an authorized editor of TU Law Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Morrow: Dancing Around the First Amendment: Symbolic Speech after Barnes NOTES AND COMMENTS DANCING AROUND THE FIRST AMENDMENT: SYMBOLIC SPEECH AFTER BARNES v. GLEN THEATRE, INC. I. INTRODUCTION After years of controversy over the constitutionality of nude danc- ing, the Supreme Court, in Barnes v. Glen Theatre, Inc.,' explicitly stated that nude dancing is symbolic speech protected by the First Amendment. Despite this holding, and with suggestive irony, the Court nevertheless upheld an Indiana statute prohibiting nude dancing. The Court's reason- ing, stripped to its essence, indicated that less protection will be given to symbolic speech and more protection to statutes imposing popular morality. In analyzing whether the Indiana statute prohibiting nudity, and thereby prohibiting nude dancing, violated the First Amendment by in- fringing on protected symbolic speech, all of the Justices but one used the four-prong "incidental restriction test" articulated in United States v.
    [Show full text]
  • Team 2 NO. 17-874 SUPREME COURT of the UNITED STATES Avery MILNER, Petitioner, V. Mac PLUCKERBE
    Team 2 NO. 17-874 _______________ IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES OCTOBER TERM 2019 _______________ Avery MILNER, Petitioner, v. Mac PLUCKERBERG, Respondent. _______________ On Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighteenth Circuit _______________ BRIEF FOR PETITIONER _______________ Attorneys for Petitioner QUESTIONS PRESENTED I. Whether a private entity hosting and regulating a public forum engaged in state action by applying its flagging policy and content restrictions, thereby inhibiting user access to a government official’s designated public forum. II. Whether a private company’s Terms and Conditions prohibiting specific mediums and frequencies of user speech in a designated public forum, to control volume and vociferous nature of speech, serve a narrowly tailored and substantial government interest through the least restrictive means, so that it comports with the First Amendment. i TABLE OF CONTENTS Page QUESTIONS PRESENTED ............................................................................................................ i TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .......................................................................................................... iv OPINIONS BELOW ........................................................................................................................1 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION ................................................................................................1 CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION INVOLVED ...........................................................................1
    [Show full text]