Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 2 of 2
Full-Text Articles in Law
Fighting Words Today, R. George Wright
Fighting Words Today, R. George Wright
Pepperdine Law Review
For some time, the familiar free speech exception known as the “fighting words” doctrine has been subject to severe judicial and scholarly critique. It turns out, though, that the fighting words doctrine, in general, is neither obsolete nor in need of radical limitation. The traditionally neglected “inflict injury” prong of the fighting words doctrine can and should be vitalized, with only a minimal loss, if not an actual net gain, in promoting the basic purposes of freedom of speech in the first place. And the “reactive violence” prong can and should be relieved of its historic biases and dubious assumptions. …
Inviting An Impermissible Inquiry? Rfra’S Substantial-Burden Requirement And “Centrality”, D. Bowie Duncan
Inviting An Impermissible Inquiry? Rfra’S Substantial-Burden Requirement And “Centrality”, D. Bowie Duncan
Pepperdine Law Review
The Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) prohibits the federal government from substan-tially burdening a person’s religious exercise unless the government can satisfy strict scrutiny. The statute also defines religious exercise to prohibit courts from inquiring into how central a particular religious exercise is to a person’s religion. “The term ‘religious exercise,’” reads the relevant provision, “includes any exercise of religion, whether or not compelled by, or central to, a system of religious belief.” Despite this prohibition on centrality inquiries, some scholars argue that RFRA’s substantial-burden element requires courts to consider the religious costs a law imposes on a religious adherent …