Intentional infliction of emotional distress tort post-Hustler-v.-Falwell

[Volokh, Eugene]

	The main issue, I think, is whether the logic of Hustler applies
only to public figure/public concern cases, or also to private
figure/public concern cases (assuming that a soldier killed in action is
a private figure, which I suspect he typically would be).  I think
Hustler's logic has to apply at least that far, among other things
because of the risk -- or perhaps certainty -- of viewpoint
discrimination that would be inherent in applying the vague intentional
infliction of emotional distress tort in such cases.  In that respect,
the emotional distress tort is even worse than a narrowly and precisely
drafted facially content-neutral anti-funeral-picketing ordinance.

	Eugene

> -----Original Message-----
> From: conlawprof-bounces at lists.ucla.edu 
> [mailto:conlawprof-bounces at lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of J. Noble
> Sent: Thursday, June 08, 2006 7:05 PM
> To: Bryan Wildenthal; Conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu
> Subject: RE: Don't fight hate speech by limiting freedom
> 
> 
> At 9:26 AM -0700 6/8/06, Bryan Wildenthal wrote:
> >And yet, surely there must be a way to protect the privacy of
> >funeral observants who simply wish to be left alone in their grief 
> >and do NOT want the funeral to become a protest occasion of any 
> >sort, either in favor of or against the deceased.
> 
> Anti-gay funeral protesters sued
> Father of slain Westminster Marine says members defamed him, invaded 
> family's privacy
> By Gina Davis
> Sun Reporter
> Originally published June 6, 2006
> 
> The father of a Westminster Marine whose funeral was picketed by an 
> anti-gay group is accusing its members of defaming him, invading the 
> family's privacy and intentionally inflicting emotional distress, in 
> the first individual lawsuit brought against the Kansas organization 
> for its protests at these ceremonies.
> 
> *    *    *
> 
> http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/local/carroll/bal-md.ca.prote
st06jun06,0,5382360.story?coll=bal-local-carroll

The strong claim is intentional infliction of emotional distress. The 
constitutional question is whether it gets  a First Amendment defense 
like NYT v. Sullivan.

John Noble
_______________________________________________
To post, send message to Conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/conlawprof

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.