The trouble with IIED liability here

[Steven Jamar]

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.


Steve

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