Anti-gay church verdict

[Douglas Laycock]

  Well, it's a combination of the two.  Hustler was a pure content
case.  Here the content matters, as Eugene says, and no doubt
contributed to the size of the verdict.  But the time and place and
personal confrontation was also essential to the verdict.  If
defendants had published the same thing in a magazine, as Hustler
did, plainly no liability.  The question is whether it's different
when they disrupt a funeral with the same message.

  Quoting "Volokh, Eugene" <VOLOKH at law.ucla.edu>:

>     Yet surely the claim must have been based on the content of the
> speech as well as the time, place, and manner.  It's extremely
unlikely
> that a jury would find friendly, neutral, or even respectfully
> disagreeing demonstrating outside a funeral to be "outrageous"
enough to
> create severe emotional distress.  So under standard First
Amendment
> doctrine, this is *not* a TPM restriction, any more than the
> restrictions in Carey v. Brown, Boos v. Barry, or a wide range of
other
> cases were TPM restrictions -- it must be judged as the
content-based
> restriction that it is.
>
>     Eugene
>
>
> ________________________________
>
>         From: religionlaw-bounces at lists.ucla.edu
> [mailto:religionlaw-bounces at lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Douglas
Laycock
>         Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2007 5:02 AM
>         To: religionlaw at lists.ucla.edu
>         Subject: Re: Anti-gay church verdict
>
>
>
>         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
>
>

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/b230c879/attachment.htm