Tough call. Hustler v. Falwell says that intentional infliction of emotional distress, when based on political speech, requires actual malice. But there the IIED claim was based on the content of the speech. Here, assuming the plaintiff's lawyer made a sensible jury argument, the IIED claim is based on time, place, and manner. They could have said these things, but they could not disrupt a funeral while they said them. A court could plausibly distinguish those cases if it chose. Quoting Joel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
From: Father wins millions from war funeral pickets http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21566280/[1] "The church members testified they are following their religious
beliefs by
spreading the message that soldiers are dying because America is
too
tolerant of homosexuality." "Attorneys for the church maintained in closing arguments Tuesday
that the
burial was a public event and that even abhorrent points of view
are
protected by the First Amendment, which guarantees freedom of
speech and
religion." Any thought on what the appellate court will do? Joel L. Sogol Attorney at Law 811 21st Avenue Tuscaloosa, Alabama 35401 ph (205) 345-0966 fx (205) 345-0967 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Ben Franklin observed that truth wins a fair fight -- which is why
we have
evidence rules in U.S. courts.
Douglas Laycock Yale Kamisar Collegiate Professor of Law University of Michigan Law School 625 S. State St. Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1215 734-647-9713 Links: ------ [1] /horde/services/go.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.msnbc.msn.com%2Fid%2F21566280%2F
_______________________________________________ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
