It was a conspiracy by Bush & Co to prove the need for restrictions on
trial lawyers.
Susan
Volokh, Eugene wrote:
> Is anyone troubled by the size of the Snyder v. Phelps
> compensatory damages award -- $2.9 million? I recognize that the speech
> is extremely offensive (and, in my view, e
If Mark is right that the speech here is fighting words, then indeed
(1) IIED could be narrowed (if courts accept my view of the overbreadth
issue) to unprotected speech, and yet (2) the result would still lead to
liability here. In fact, fighting-words-based IIED liability would
presumably be
Is anyone troubled by the size of the Snyder v. Phelps
compensatory damages award -- $2.9 million? I recognize that the speech
is extremely offensive (and, in my view, entirely unjustified); and of
course the plaintiff, being a grieving parent, was especially
emotionally vulnerable. Yet I
Well, let me probe again the question I raised in the post below
(which Michael quotes). I take it that to the extent that speech can be
punished because it indirectly promotes violence -- which is to say, to
the extent that Brandenburg v. Ohio is overruled, at least when speech
comes from
Let me make two related points.
1. People who dislike Phelps' group may do so for a variety of
reasons, some reasons being principled, some being tactical or strategic
only.
2. There is a powerful psychological link between gays and the
Phelps group's conduct at the funeral of fallen wa
falsness plus negligence, falseness plus reckless disregard, falseness
plus commercial speech, falseness under oath.
where is the falseness exception?
Hustler is not a falseness case. It is a public-figure-open-to-satire
case. The very falseness of it was the "joke".
On 11/5/07, Volokh, Eugen
Sure there is -- "false statements of fact have no
constitutional value," said Gertz, and when said with the proper mens
rea, they are unprotected. See NYT v. Sullivan (defamation); Time v.
Hill (false light invasion of privacy); Madigan (fraudulent charitable
solicitation). That's also w
