The trouble with IIED liability here
VOLOKH at law.ucla.edu
Mon Nov 5 09:22:32 PST 2007
Sure there is -- "false statements of fact have no
constitutional value," said Gertz, and when said with the proper mens
rea, they are unprotected. See NYT v. Sullivan (defamation); Time v.
Hill (false light invasion of privacy); Madigan (fraudulent charitable
solicitation). That's also why laws punishing perjury, false statements
to government officials, and more are permissible. The exception might
not cover all knowingly false statements (see, e.g., the seditious libel
exception-to-the-exception mentioned in NYT v. Sullivan), but the reason
Hustler's proviso that false statements (presumably about the plaintiff)
are actionable makes sense is precisely that they fall within an
> -----Original Message-----
> From: religionlaw-bounces at lists.ucla.edu
> [mailto:religionlaw-bounces at lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Steven Jamar
> Sent: Sunday, November 04, 2007 12:44 PM
> To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
> Subject: Re: The trouble with IIED liability here
> 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
> To post, send message to Religionlaw at lists.ucla.edu To
> subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
> Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be
> viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read
> messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives;
> and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the
> messages to others.
More information about the Religionlaw