The Right To Be Unpatriotic

You may also like...

4 Responses

  1. AndyK says:

    County of Allegheny v. ACLU, which does for the Establishment Clause something I haven’t seen in the Speech context: notes our Constitution protects “secular liberty” and advances a particular type of secular religion, rather than remaining neutral.

  2. Joe says:

    WEST VIRGINIA STATE BOARD OF ED. v. BARNETTE is up there, Griswold v. Connecticut … the first comment does give an opinion I liked reading each Christmas season but McCreary County v. ACLU is good too, since it reaffirms that the 1A isn’t just some monotheist protection racket.

  3. Nick says:

    Goldberg’s concurrence in Griswold. Warren’s and Douglas’s dissent in Breithaupt (speaking of Schmerber). Texas v. Johnson and Edwards v. Aguillard are personal Brennan favorites.

  4. Jim Maloney says:

    Sometimes courts find that we cannot be compelled to carry the government’s message. But in one area, that of compelling government employees to be “clean-shaven” in order to send a “favorable” message, very few courts (notable among them being the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia and the state courts of California) have sided with liberty. As I wrote in 1995, “In Wooley, Barnette was logically extended to the realm of license plates but, perhaps paradoxically, has yet to be applied in the vastly more personal and expressive realm of faces.”

    Suits for the Hirsute: Defending Against America’s Undeclared War on Beards in the Workplace, 63 Fordham Law Review 1203, 1242 (1995).

    Not much has changed since then. Majorities and even sizable minorities can celebrate their “liberty,” but certain very small minorities, such as those who would prefer to wear a beard but are prohibited from doing so (being required to be “clean-shaven” in deference to lingering prejudices that effectively say that the “unshaven” must be “unclean”) have reason to doubt the true extent of the “liberty” so celebrated by the masses.