The trouble with IIED liability here
stevenjamar at gmail.com
Sun Nov 4 12:43:54 PST 2007
thanks for the clarification.
But there is no exception to the first amendment for false speech either -- that
was not the decision in Hustler -- it was an IIED decision.
If this case gets to the supremes, I fully expect it to be affirmed
easily. The exact grounds on which it will be affirmed is harder to
predict. I would expect another splintered decision with multiple
opinions and no clear rule emerging.
On 11/4/07, Volokh, Eugene <VOLOKH at law.ucla.edu> wrote:
> My view is simple, and, I would think, quite consistent with First
> Amendment principles: (1) Otherwise protected speech can't be regulated
> because it's "outrageous," and (2) there's no new First Amendment
> exception for outrageous speech that causes severe emotional distress.
Prof. Steven Jamar
Howard University School of Law
More information about the Religionlaw