I appreciate Mark's thoughts, but have a few follow-up
questions:
(1) Can it really for First Amendment purposes matter that
there are multiple abortions at a clinic -- all of which are being
equally criticized by the speakers -- and only one funeral at a time?
(2) What
ng that they are engaging
in public harassment of individuals to help publicize their racist
message -- which is a matter of public concern.
Alan Brownstein
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Volokh, Eugene
Sent: Friday, November 02, 2007 11:52
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Esenberg,
Richard
Sent: Friday, November 02, 2007 9:20 AM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: IIED and vagueness
As others have suggested, I think it goes like this. It seems quite
possible to suppose tha
Esenberg,
Richard
Sent: Friday, November 02, 2007 9:20 AM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: IIED and vagueness
As others have suggested, I think it goes like this. It seems quite
possible to suppose that military families will be offended by
demonstrators, either, as with Code
nse of just what was being proposed.
Eugene
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
> Newsom Michael
> Sent: Friday, November 02, 2007 11:37 AM
> To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
> Subject: RE:
tution forbids protecting people at a time
of great sorrow and grief from obscene, targeted insult-as-violence.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Volokh, Eugene
Sent: Friday, November 02, 2007 12:35 AM
To: Law & Religion issues
)414-213-3957
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mark Tushnet
Sent: Friday, November 02, 2007 9:26 AM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: IIED and vagueness
If the actual spatial relation between the location of the activity and
_
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Volokh, Eugene
Sent: Thu 11/1/2007 9:34 PM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: IIED and vagueness
It seems to me that this would make "matter of public concern"
even mushier and viewpoint-based than it already
On Nov 2, 2007, at Friday,November 2, 2007,7:14 AM, Scarberry, Mark
wrote:
>
> I don't know that it's possible to discuss whether fighting words
> are involved without discussing outrageousness. It is largely the
> outrage caused by personally targeted speech that potentially makes
> it fi
Sent: Fri 11/2/2007 9:20 AM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: IIED and vagueness
As others have suggested, I think it goes like this. It seems quite possible to
suppose that military families will be offended by demonstrators, either, as
with Code Pink, outside a mil
ting examples).
Mark Scarberry
Pepperdine
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Volokh, Eugene
Sent: Fri 11/2/2007 2:42 AM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: IIED and vagueness
Mark: Would you say that anti-abortion protests at abor
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: IIED and vagueness
Could you be a bit more specific about the factual context of the Code
Pink demonstrations? How is it analogous to Westboro's conduct?
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECT
trageousness inquiry.
Eugene
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Scarberry, Mark
Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2007 11:35 AM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: IIED and vagueness
But this is t
vered) to offend me because of what it says.
Eugene
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
> Brownstein, Alan
> Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2007 2:58 PM
> To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
> Sub
ovember 01, 2007 3:55 PM
> To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
> Subject: RE: IIED and vagueness
>
> Some of what I am about to say I have said before. But here
> goes anyway.
>
> What would be the risk of viewpoint discrimination, in a
> practical, real-world,
Some of what I am about to say I have said before. But here goes
anyway.
What would be the risk of viewpoint discrimination, in a practical,
real-world, sense? I am not aware of any other groups who attempt to
inflict severe emotional distress on the occasion of the funeral of a
soldier killed i
: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: IIED and vagueness
Well, it certainly seems outrageous to me but I suspect that other
reasonable people might regard the Code Pink demonstrations outside the
Walter Reed Army Medical Center as, if not equally outrageous, at least
comparable
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Volokh, Eugene
Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2007 6:16 PM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: IIED and vagueness
I think that (1) otherwise protected speech (i.e., speech that falls
outside the exceptions, and any new strict-
> On 11/1/07, Volokh, Eugene <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > (1) How does Hustler teach that IIED is a viable tort, as
> > applied to otherwise protected speech (or at least
> otherwise protected
> > speech on matters of public concern). True, it didn't hold
> that IIED
> > is impermi
ED] On Behalf Of
> Brownstein, Alan
> Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2007 2:31 PM
> To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
> Subject: RE: IIED and vagueness
>
> Just to be clear here, Eugene. Leaving vagueness aside for the moment:
>
> Are you arguing that all IIED
ted speech "on matters of public concern"?
Alan Brownstein
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Volokh, Eugene
Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2007 1:34 PM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: IIED and vaguene
ember 01, 2007 1:34 PM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: IIED and vagueness
(1) How does Hustler teach that IIED is a viable tort, as
applied to otherwise protected speech (or at least otherwise protected
speech on matters of public concern). True, it didn&#x
On 11/1/07, Volokh, Eugene <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> (1) How does Hustler teach that IIED is a viable tort, as
> applied to otherwise protected speech (or at least otherwise protected
> speech on matters of public concern). True, it didn't hold that IIED is
> impermissible as to otherw
You're right, I think. It's not an answer most soldiers and religious leaders
would necessarily like, but it's right.
It's more a problem in irony and public relations than law. It might work as a
segment on Boston Legal, but it's not enough of a legal issue for a legal
journal.
That's w
Thursday, November 01, 2007 11:49 AM
> To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
> Subject: Re: IIED and vagueness
>
> Let me get this straight. We want a clear rule that applies
> easily in all cases and so we just say let any speech happen
> because we can't ev
7 12:12 PM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: IIED and vagueness
Just out of curiosity, what happens in a hypothetical if the
family of the soldier claims the funeral is a religious service which
deserves special protection from such disr
I'm sorry, Ed, but I'm missing the problem. Free exercise or free
speech -- is that the conflict you are positing as in conflict? If
so, I assume it is not a question directed to me since I don't think
the limitation on free speech violates the constitution even without
the free exercise overlay
ECTED] on behalf of Volokh, Eugene
> Sent: Thu 11/1/2007 1:47 PM
> To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
> Subject: RE: IIED and vagueness
>
>
> But Cohen v. California made clear that "fighting words" require some
> individualized insult of the targeted
very similar to fighting words.
>
> Mark
>
>
>
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Volokh, Eugene
> Sent: Thu 11/1/2007 1:47 PM
> To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
> Subject: RE: IIED and vagueness
>
>
> But Co
he funeral that
makes it targeted and very similar to fighting words.
Mark
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Volokh, Eugene
Sent: Thu 11/1/2007 1:47 PM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: IIED and vagueness
But Cohen v. Califor
PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Brownstein,
Alan
Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2007 10:58 AM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: IIED and vagueness
I'm not sure if this is technically fighting words, but I
suspect many people would a
Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: IIED and vagueness
Then I suppose I'd be inclined to argue that IIED as applied in this
case is constitutional on Eugene's approach, because what the protesters
were doing was very much like fighting words and should not be
considered to
t
that.
Eugene
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Scarberry, Mark
Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2007 10:46 AM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: IIED and vagueness
Then I su
"the law is a ass--a idiot."
Mark Scarberry
Pepperdine
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Volokh, Eugene
Sent: Thu 11/1/2007 1:18 PM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: IIED and vagueness
I think the IIED tort is unc
Scarberry, Mark
Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2007 10:03 AM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: IIED and vagueness
I don't think there is any vagueness at all in the tort of IIED
as applied to these funeral protests. I don't
CTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Steven Jamar
> Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2007 9:17 AM
> To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
> Subject: Re: IIED and vagueness
>
> What makes it outrageous is not the content per se, but the
> content in the con
I don't think there is any vagueness at all in the tort of IIED as applied to
these funeral protests. I don't think the defendants were in doubt at all that
what they were doing would inflict serious emotional distress and would be
thought by almost everyone other than themselves (maybe even inc
ailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Steven Jamar
Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2007 11:17 AM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: IIED and vagueness
What makes it outrageous is not the content per se, but the content in
the context. And doesn't the old workhorse, our erstw
What makes it outrageous is not the content per se, but the content in
the context. And doesn't the old workhorse, our erstwhile objective
standard of "outrageous to a reasonable person", save it from
unconstitutional vagueness?
Steve
On 11/1/07, Volokh, Eugene <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
I agree on the vagueness problems. The statutes prohibiting
picketing at funerals have their own problems, but they can avoid
vagueness and define knowable penalties.
Quoting "Volokh, Eugene" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
Isn't a restriction on "speech that is outrageous, and
inflicts
sev
40 matches
Mail list logo
