Anti-gay church verdict

[Douglas Laycock]

  Tough call.  Hustler v. Falwell says that intentional infliction of
emotional distress, when based on political speech, requires actual
malice.  But there the IIED claim was based on the content of the
speech.  Here, assuming the plaintiff's lawyer made a sensible jury
argument, the IIED claim is based on time, place, and manner.  They
could have said these things, but they could not disrupt a funeral
while they said them.  A court could plausibly distinguish those
cases if it chose.

  Quoting Joel <jlsatty at wwisp.com>:

> From:    Father wins millions from war funeral pickets
> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21566280/[1]
>
>
>
> "The church members testified they are following their religious
beliefs by
> spreading the message that soldiers are dying because America is
too
> tolerant of homosexuality."
>
>
>
> "Attorneys for the church maintained in closing arguments Tuesday
that the
> burial was a public event and that even abhorrent points of view
are
> protected by the First Amendment, which guarantees freedom of
speech and
> religion."
>
>
>
> Any thought on what the appellate court will do?
>
>
>
> Joel L. Sogol
>
> Attorney at Law
>
> 811 21st Avenue
>
> Tuscaloosa, Alabama  35401
>
> ph (205) 345-0966
>
> fx  (205) 345-0967
>
> jlsatty at wwisp.com
>
>
>
> Ben Franklin observed that truth wins a fair fight -- which is why
we have
> evidence rules in U.S. courts.
>
>
>
>

Douglas Laycock
Yale Kamisar Collegiate Professor of Law
University of Michigan Law School
625 S. State St.
Ann Arbor, MI  48109-1215
  734-647-9713

Links:
------
[1] 
/horde/services/go.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.msnbc.msn.com%2Fid%2F21566280%2F

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ucla.edu/pipermail/religionlaw/attachments/20071101/23cbc701/attachment.htm