[EL] ELB News and Commentary 12/20/11

[BZall at aol.com]

Rosenberger said:

The quoted language in Widmar was but a proper  recognition of the 
principle that, when the State is the speaker, it may make  content-based choices. 
When the University determines the content of the  education it provides, it 
is the University speaking, and we have permitted the  government to 
regulate the content of what is or is not expressed when it is the  speaker or when 
it enlists private entities to convey its own message. In the  same vein, 
in Rust v. Sullivan, supra, we upheld the government's  prohibition on 
abortion-related advice applicable to recipients of federal funds  for family 
planning counseling. There, the government did not create a program  to 
encourage private speech, but instead used private speakers to transmit  specific 
information pertaining to its own program. We recognized that when the  
government appropriates public funds to promote a particular policy of its own  it 
is entitled to say what it wishes. 500 U.S. at 194. When the government  
disburses public funds to private entities to convey a governmental message, 
it  may take legitimate and appropriate steps to ensure that its message is 
neither  garbled nor distorted by the grantee. See id. at 196-200.  
It does not follow, however, and we did  not suggest in Widmar, that 
viewpoint-based restrictions are proper when  the University does not itself speak 
or subsidize transmittal of a message it  favors, but instead expends funds 
to encourage a diversity of views from private  speakers.

Barnaby Zall
Of Counsel
Weinberg, Jacobs & Tolani,  LLP
11300 Rockville Pike, Suite 1200
Rockville, MD 20852
301-231-6943  (direct dial)
_www.wjlaw.com_ (http://www.wj/) 
bzall at aol.com



_____________________________________________________________
U.S.  Treasury Circular 230 Notice

Any U.S. federal tax advice included in this  communication (including
any attachments) was not intended or written to be  used, and cannot be
used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding U.S. federal  tax-related penalties
or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another  party any
tax-related matter addressed  herein.
_____________________________________________________________
Confidentiality

The  information contained in this communication may be confidential, is 
intended  only for the use of the recipient named above, and may be legally 
 
privileged. It is not intended as legal advice, and may not be relied upon  
or used as legal advice. Nor does this communication establish an attorney  
client relationship between us. If the reader of this message is not the  
intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination,  
distribution, or copying of this communication, or any of its contents, is  
strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error,  
please re-send this communication to the sender and delete the original  
message and any copy of it from your computer system. Thank  you.
______________________________________________________________  

 
In a message dated 12/22/2011 3:47:06 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,  
Mark.Scarberry at pepperdine.edu writes:

 
Rosenberger upheld the First Amendment rights of the students even though  
a state entity (U. of Va.) was funding the publication. Forum analysis comes 
 into play here.

Mark Scarberry
Pepperdine





-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20111222/d8b3d45e/attachment.html>