nt illegal conduct.)
Eugene
From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu
[mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Scarberry, Mark
Sent: Friday, March 04, 2011 11:45 AM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: IIED applied to speech that violates a c
ugh not Snyder).
Eugene
From: Malla Pollack [mailto:mallapolla...@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, March 04, 2011 9:50 AM
To: Eric Segall
Cc: Volokh, Eugene; Law & Religion issues for Law Academics;
conlawp...@lists.ucla.edu
Subject: Re: IIED applied to speech that violates a content-neutral res
k [mailto:mallapolla...@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, March 04, 2011 9:50 AM
To: Eric Segall
Cc: Volokh, Eugene; Law & Religion issues for Law Academics;
conlawp...@lists.ucla.edu
Subject: Re: IIED applied to speech that violates a content-neutral restriction
To make Eric's hypothetical close to Snyd
Behalf Of Marty Lederman
Sent: Friday, March 04, 2011 3:33 AM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Cc: conlawp...@lists.ucla.edu
Subject: Re: IIED applied to speech that violates a content-neutral restriction
So, Chip, for what it's worth, I read Snyder to reserve this questio
ally wide. I suspect
that 300 feet would likewise be seen as too wide for funerals.
Eugene
From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu
[mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Steven Jamar
Sent: Friday, March 04, 2011 4:04 AM
Cc: Law & Religion issues for Law Acad
While I am certainly not a fan of the secondary effects doctrine, it seems
one could make a good argument that IIED is content neutral under it. That
is, IIED is not trying to regulate the content per se, but instead is
regulating the effects of speech regardless of content.
One could also make th
So, Chip, for what it's worth, I read Snyder to reserve this question, not
to decide it. (The question being same facts -- IIEF claim where "ultimate
thrust" of speech is to the public on matters of public concern -- but
violation of content-neutral TPM restrictions.) Predictive answer? Not
sure
I think a content-neutral ban on picketing immediately outside a
funeral would likely be constitutional, see Frisby v. Schultz. But I think
applying IIED liability to speech that violates such a content-neutral ban
would be content-based, and thus likely unconstitutional, by anal
