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

[Lynne Henderson]

Intentional infliction of emotional distress isn't a vague tort, she 
said after having taught torts for the first time.  It's whatever 
causes the jury to exclaim "outrageous!"
Actually, I think this tort deserves recognition in this context, 
especially as these folks aren't "public figures", it isn't a parody, 
etc. The intent of these folks is not benign, and they know they are 
causing distress.  The bad part is that recognizing the tort would also 
imply it is somehow outrageous to be impliedly called a homosexual.
Lynne Henderson

On Jun 9, 2006, at 9:51 AM, Volokh, Eugene wrote:

> 	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.
> _______________________________________________
> 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.
>