Intentional infliction of emotional distress tort
hendersl at ix.netcom.com
Fri Jun 9 14:52:45 PDT 2006
It was ironic, but it is a direct quote from a case as well, where it
was used seriously. The illegitimacy is indeed tied to the context. I
should have been more clear about the concern that the language
regarding homosexuality could be offensive.
On Jun 9, 2006, at 11:34 AM, Volokh, Eugene wrote:
> I'm assuming the response about the vagueness is facetious; and
> it still leaves me wondering whether there might be a serious, perhaps
> constitutionally fatal, vagueness problem here.
> As to the intent to cause distress, that's common in many
> picketing contexts. The stronger argument, I take it, is that the
> distress is especially likely to be illegitimate when it's funeral
> picketing that harshly condemns the deceased -- but again, even if this
> can support a content-neutral and narrow funeral picketing ordinance,
> can it really support a potentially content-based distress tort in
> the jury must make an ad hoc judgment of "outrageousness"?
> Finally, I don't think the problem here is that recognizing the
> tort would "imply it is somehow outrageous to be impliedly called a
> homosexual"; the plaintiffs' claims don't rest on the theory that the
> defendants are impliedly calling their late son a homosexual.
More information about the Conlawprof