Snyder v. Phelps compensatory damages award

[Susan Freiman]

It was a conspiracy by Bush & Co to prove the need for restrictions on 
trial lawyers.

Susan

Volokh, Eugene wrote:
> 	Is anyone troubled by the size of the Snyder v. Phelps
> compensatory damages award -- $2.9 million?  I recognize that the speech
> is extremely offensive (and, in my view, entirely unjustified); and of
> course the plaintiff, being a grieving parent, was especially
> emotionally vulnerable.  Yet I would think that even a grieving father
> wouldn't be that damaged by speech that he saw on one occasion (albeit a
> deeply important occasion), that he knew was not remotely reflective of
> the views of his community, and that he knew was said by people who are
> held in contempt by the community.  The speech wasn't threatening; it
> didn't damage his reputation; it wasn't constantly repeated; I can't
> quite see how it would exacerbate his grief; it simply revealed that
> there is a small minority of hateful, anti-American kooks and publicity
> hounds who are willing to say shocking and appalling things (and, I
> suspect, that there are many decent people who condemn such speech and
> express their condolences to Snyder, both for his loss and for the
> insult).  The speech doubtless made him extremely (and rightly) angry,
> but is $2.9 million really a sensible compensation for that sort of
> emotional distress?
>
> 	Of course, note that even if the First Amendment were entirely
> out of the picture, the size of the compensatory verdict is
> constitutionally significant because under the Court's Due Process
> Clause jurisprudence, the punitive damages would be unconstitutional if
> they were too many times greater than the compensatory damages.
>
> 	Eugene
> _______________________________________________
> 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.
>