The trouble with IIED liability here

[Steven Jamar]

falsness plus negligence, falseness plus reckless disregard, falseness
plus commercial speech, falseness under oath.

where is the falseness exception?

Hustler is not a falseness case.  It is a public-figure-open-to-satire
case.  The very falseness of it was the "joke".


On 11/5/07, Volokh, Eugene <VOLOKH at law.ucla.edu> wrote:
>         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
> exception.
>
> > -----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.
> >
> >
> > 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
> > _______________________________________________
> > To post, send message to Religionlaw at lists.ucla.edu To
> > subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
> > http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
> >
> > 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.
> >
> _______________________________________________
> To post, send message to Religionlaw at lists.ucla.edu
> To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
>
> 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.
>


-- 
Prof. Steven Jamar
Howard University School of Law