thanks for the clarification.
But there is no exception to the first amendment for false speech either -- that
was not the decision in Hustler -- it was an IIED decision.
If this case gets to the supremes, I fully expect it to be affirmed
easily. The exact grounds on which it will be affirmed i
My view is simple, and, I would think, quite consistent with First
Amendment principles: (1) Otherwise protected speech can't be regulated
because it's "outrageous," and (2) there's no new First Amendment
exception for outrageous speech that causes severe emotional distress.
This means t
If I understand Eugene correctly, intentional infliction of emotional
distress can never be constitutional unless what causes the distress
is pure conduct. So if there are a series of late night phone calls,
then there is speech and so there can be no IIED liability. Even if
the calls are
