IIED and vagueness

[Volokh, Eugene]

    Well, many people feel extremely outraged by a wide range of speech
-- and if their outrage could translate into lawful speech restrictions,
then I expect that this range would only expand.
 
    Eugene


________________________________

	From: religionlaw-bounces at lists.ucla.edu
[mailto:religionlaw-bounces at lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Brownstein,
Alan
	Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2007 10:58 AM
	To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
	Subject: RE: IIED and vagueness
	
	

	I'm not sure if this is technically fighting words, but I
suspect many people would agree with Mark as to the feelings generated
by these protests.  

	 

	From: religionlaw-bounces at lists.ucla.edu
[mailto:religionlaw-bounces at lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Scarberry, Mark
	Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2007 10:46 AM
	To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
	Subject: RE: IIED and vagueness

	 

	Then I suppose I'd be inclined to argue that IIED as applied in
this case is constitutional on Eugene's approach, because what the
protesters were doing was very much like fighting words and should not
be considered to be protected speech. I'm not sure the quote is correct,
but I think H.L. Mencken said, "Every normal man must be tempted at
times to spit upon his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting
throats." I have to say that if the law cannot somehow restrain these
despicable protesters from inflicting such harm on grieving relatives of
fallen soldiers, many of us will be tempted. The protesters can hold
their protests anywhere else and any other time. 

	 

	On the theory that if one quote is good, two must be better,
I'll add that if the law cannot prevent them from doing so at a
soldier's funeral then Mr. Bumble was right that "the law is a ass--a
idiot."

	 

	Mark Scarberry

	Pepperdine

	
	 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ucla.edu/pipermail/religionlaw/attachments/20071101/e458156f/attachment.htm