Signs of the Times: Dale V. Boy Scouts of America and the Changing Meaning of Nondiscrimination

A. Koppelman
{"title":"Signs of the Times: Dale V. Boy Scouts of America and the Changing Meaning of Nondiscrimination","authors":"A. Koppelman","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.297180","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"All antidiscrimination laws are unconstitutional in all their applications. Citizens are allowed to disobey laws whenever obedience would be perceived as endorsing some message. Both of these propositions are absurd. However, the Supreme Court's opinion in Dale v. Boy Scouts of America stands for at least one of them, and perhaps both. The already voluminous commentary on Dale is too polite, because almost all of it fails to notice the sheer lunacy of what the Court said. The Court's disastrous opinion offers a useful cautionary lesson in First Amendment jurisprudence: determinations of what is protected speech cannot defer either to individual speakers or to the culture as a whole, because such deference produces bizarre results.","PeriodicalId":80891,"journal":{"name":"Cardozo law review","volume":"23 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2002-01-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"4","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cardozo law review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.297180","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

Abstract

All antidiscrimination laws are unconstitutional in all their applications. Citizens are allowed to disobey laws whenever obedience would be perceived as endorsing some message. Both of these propositions are absurd. However, the Supreme Court's opinion in Dale v. Boy Scouts of America stands for at least one of them, and perhaps both. The already voluminous commentary on Dale is too polite, because almost all of it fails to notice the sheer lunacy of what the Court said. The Court's disastrous opinion offers a useful cautionary lesson in First Amendment jurisprudence: determinations of what is protected speech cannot defer either to individual speakers or to the culture as a whole, because such deference produces bizarre results.
时代的标志:戴尔·v·美国童子军和不歧视的变化意义
所有反歧视法在适用时都是违宪的。公民被允许不遵守法律,只要服从被认为是支持某些信息。这两个命题都是荒谬的。然而,最高法院在戴尔诉美国童子军案中的意见至少代表了其中之一,也许两者都是。对戴尔的大量评论太客气了,因为几乎所有的评论都没有注意到法院所说的完全是疯狂的。最高法院灾难性的判决为第一修正案的法理学提供了有益的警示:决定什么是受保护的言论,既不能服从于个别说话者,也不能服从于整体文化,因为这种服从会产生奇怪的结果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书