Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- Buffer zone (1)
- Communication (1)
- Constitutional Law, Generally (1)
- Content neutrality (1)
- Disability law (1)
-
- Emotional distress (1)
- First Amendment (1)
- Freedom of speech (1)
- Funeral picketing (1)
- Holmes (1)
- Human rights (1)
- Legislation (1)
- Marketplace of ideas (1)
- Personality (1)
- Privacy (1)
- Public Law and Legal Theory (1)
- Public discourse (1)
- Recognition (1)
- Religion (1)
- Rights (1)
- Sexual agency (1)
- Supported decision-making (1)
- Torts (1)
Articles 1 - 2 of 2
Full-Text Articles in Entire DC Network
The Role Of Support In Sexual Decision-Making For People With Intellectual And Developmental Disabilities, Jasmine E. Harris
The Role Of Support In Sexual Decision-Making For People With Intellectual And Developmental Disabilities, Jasmine E. Harris
All Faculty Scholarship
In response to Alexander Boni-Saenz, Sexuality and Incapacity, 76 Ohio St. L.J. 1201 (2015).
This Response analyzes three aspects of Boni-Saenz’s cognition-plus test. First, I position his normative and prescriptive proposals within an existing, robust conversation regarding legal capacity, SDM, and the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD). Scholars of international human rights law offer valuable insights on challenges of redefining legal capacity and implementing SDM. Advocates continue to debate and contest SDM as a practical, administrable, and measurable alternative. Second, I identify potential normative implications of incorporating SDM into domestic law, specifically for …
To Drink The Cup Of Fury: Funeral Picketing, Public Discourse And The First Amendment, Steven J. Heyman
To Drink The Cup Of Fury: Funeral Picketing, Public Discourse And The First Amendment, Steven J. Heyman
All Faculty Scholarship
In Snyder v. Phelps, the Supreme Court held that the Westboro Baptist Church had a First Amendment right to picket the funeral of a young soldier killed in Iraq. This decision reinforces a position that has become increasingly prevalent in First Amendment jurisprudence – the view that the state may not regulate public discourse to protect individuals from emotional or dignitary injury. In this Article, I argue that this view is deeply problematic for two reasons: it unduly sacrifices the value of individual personality and it tends to undermine the sphere of public discourse itself by negating the practical and …