IIED and vagueness
Volokh, Eugene
VOLOKH at law.ucla.edu
Thu Nov 1 15:17:55 PDT 2007
> On 11/1/07, Volokh, Eugene <VOLOKH at law.ucla.edu> wrote:
> > (1) How does Hustler teach that IIED is a viable tort, as
> > applied to otherwise protected speech (or at least
> otherwise protected
> > speech on matters of public concern). True, it didn't hold
> that IIED
> > is impermissible as to otherwise protected speech -- but
> did it ever
> > hold that it is viable as to such speech?
>
> Agreed. But the court did not say that IIED is out of bounds
> and I read Hustler's reasoning and opinions to permit IIED --
> though I agree it is indeed reading tea leaves to a large
> extent and the exact issue was not part of the holding.
Sure, it didn't say it. But it isn't just reading tea leaves to
say that "Hustler teach[es]" the contrary -- at most, Hustler *is
consistent* with the contrary view, rather than teaching it.
> >
> > (2) Defamation requires that a statement be
> factually false.
> > That's sometimes not easy to define, and often not easy to
> tell, but
> > it's much clearer than an "outrageousness" standard.
>
> Agreed, but I don't find that to be an infirmity.
> Maliciousness is hard to tell to. As are many other things
> in the law.
Fortunately, the libel exception doesn't require a finding of
maliciousness in the English sense of the word -- only knowledge or
recklessness as to falsehood, which is at times hard to tell on the
facts, but is a relatively crisp legal standard.
> >
> > (3) I say it again: The Court has repeatedly held
> that the
> > lower scrutiny applicable to time, place, and manner
> restrictions is
> > applicable only to *content-neutral* time, place, and manner
> > restrictions.
>
> They say that, but the "secondary effects" doctrine seems to
> undermine it a bit, no?
I don't like that doctrine, but to the Court's credit the Court
has repeatedly constrained the doctrine, in particular stressing that
the emotive effects of speech on the audience are *not* a secondary
effect. See, e.g., Boos v. Barry; R.A.V; Nationalist County; and more.
More information about the Religionlaw
mailing list