The trouble with IIED liability here

[Steven Jamar]

If I understand Eugene correctly, intentional infliction of emotional  
distress can never be constitutional unless what causes the distress  
is pure conduct.  So if there are a series of late night phone calls,  
then there is speech and so there can be no IIED liability.  Even if  
the calls are just of the "you effing whore" variety -- protected  
profanity -- not fighting words.  I suppose conduct like  
intentionally almost running someone over but swerving away at the  
last minute would be excluded, even for Eugene.  But short of that,  
these cases always have some speech

And what of stalkers?  Can't regulate them either?

So Eugene, do I have it right?  If so, under what circumstances, if  
ever, would you allow this rarely invoked tort?  OR limit stalkers  
who do both physical and emotional stalking?

Steve

-- 
Prof. Steven D. Jamar                               vox:  202-806-8017
Howard University School of Law                     fax:  202-806-8567
2900 Van Ness Street NW                   mailto:stevenjamar at gmail.com
Washington, DC  20008	                          http://iipsj.com/SDJ/

"If we are to receive full service from government, the universities  
must give us trained [people].  That means a constant reorientation  
of university instruction and research not for the mere purpose of  
increasing technical proficiency but for the purpose of keeping  
abreast with social and economic change. . . .  Government is no  
better than its [people]."

William O. Douglas


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ucla.edu/pipermail/religionlaw/attachments/20071104/a2136138/attachment.htm