Anti-gay church verdict
VOLOKH at law.ucla.edu
Thu Nov 1 10:13:26 PDT 2007
I agree that it is the question -- but it's important to recognize,
I think, that this is a core content-based speech restriction case, not
just one that is to be judged under the more forgiving Ward v. Rock
Against Racism content-neutral time/place/manner standard.
From: religionlaw-bounces at lists.ucla.edu
[mailto:religionlaw-bounces at lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Douglas Laycock
Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2007 8:37 AM
To: religionlaw at lists.ucla.edu
Subject: RE: Anti-gay church verdict
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
> speech as well as the time, place, and manner. It's extremely
> that a jury would find friendly, neutral, or even respectfully
> disagreeing demonstrating outside a funeral to be "outrageous"
> create severe emotional distress. So under standard First
> doctrine, this is *not* a TPM restriction, any more than the
> restrictions in Carey v. Brown, Boos v. Barry, or a wide range
> cases were TPM restrictions -- it must be judged as the
> restriction that it is.
> From: religionlaw-bounces at lists.ucla.edu
> [mailto:religionlaw-bounces at lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of
> 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
> of emotional distress, when based on political speech,
> malice. But there the IIED claim was based on the content of
> speech. Here, assuming the plaintiff's lawyer made a sensible
> argument, the IIED claim is based on time, place, and manner.
> could have said these things, but they could not disrupt a
> they said them. A court could plausibly distinguish those
cases if it
> Quoting Joel <jlsatty at wwisp.com>:
> > From: Father wins millions from war funeral
> > http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21566280/
> > "The church members testified they are following
> religious beliefs by
> > spreading the message that soldiers are dying
> is too
> > tolerant of homosexuality."
> > "Attorneys for the church maintained in closing
> Tuesday that the
> > burial was a public event and that even abhorrent
> view are
> > protected by the First Amendment, which guarantees
> 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
Yale Kamisar Collegiate Professor of Law
University of Michigan Law School
625 S. State St.
Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1215
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Religionlaw