And, of course, unlike in Hustler, the persons at whom the speech was directed
here were not public figures.
On this point, I highly recommend Robert Post's article on Hustler, "The
Constitutional Concept of Public Discourse: Outrageous Opinion, Democratic
Deliberation, & Hustler Magazine v. Falwell," 103 Harvard Law Review 603 (1990).
-------------- Original message ----------------------
From: Douglas Laycock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>
> 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
>
>
--- Begin Message ---
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.
--- End Message ---
_______________________________________________
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.
