I appreciate Mark's thoughts, but have a few follow-up
questions:
(1) Can it really for First Amendment purposes matter that
there are multiple abortions at a clinic -- all of which are being
equally criticized by the speakers -- and only one funeral at a time?
(2) What
11/2/2007 9:20 AM
To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: IIED and vagueness
As others have suggested, I think it goes like this. It seems quite possible to
suppose that military families will be offended by demonstrators, either, as
with Code Pink, outside a military hospital
of Volokh, Eugene
Sent: Thu 11/1/2007 9:34 PM
To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: IIED and vagueness
It seems to me that this would make matter of public concern
even mushier and viewpoint-based than it already is (or perhaps it would
just illustrate the mushiness
PROTECTED]
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mark Tushnet
Sent: Friday, November 02, 2007 9:26 AM
To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: IIED and vagueness
If the actual spatial relation between the location of the activity and those
who are offended
Academics
Subject: RE: IIED and vagueness
Could you be a bit more specific about the factual context of the Code
Pink demonstrations? How is it analogous to Westboro's conduct?
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Esenberg,
Richard
Sent
On Nov 2, 2007, at Friday,November 2, 2007,7:14 AM, Scarberry, Mark
wrote:
I don't know that it's possible to discuss whether fighting words
are involved without discussing outrageousness. It is largely the
outrage caused by personally targeted speech that potentially makes
it
Sent: Friday, November 02, 2007 11:37 AM
To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: IIED and vagueness
1.The Phelps group is doing more than just arguing a point of
view regarding sin and homosexuality.
2.There is a difference between saying God bless American
soldiers
Of Esenberg,
Richard
Sent: Friday, November 02, 2007 9:20 AM
To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: IIED and vagueness
As others have suggested, I think it goes like this. It seems quite
possible to suppose that military families will be offended by
demonstrators, either, as with Code Pink
sorrow and grief from obscene, targeted insult-as-violence.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Volokh, Eugene
Sent: Friday, November 02, 2007 12:35 AM
To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: IIED and vagueness
It seems
] On Behalf Of Esenberg,
Richard
Sent: Friday, November 02, 2007 9:20 AM
To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: IIED and vagueness
As others have suggested, I think it goes like this. It seems quite
possible to suppose that military families will be offended by
demonstrators, either
is a matter of public concern.
Alan Brownstein
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Volokh, Eugene
Sent: Friday, November 02, 2007 11:52 AM
To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: IIED and vagueness
1. Much as Michael
I agree on the vagueness problems. The statutes prohibiting
picketing at funerals have their own problems, but they can avoid
vagueness and define knowable penalties.
Quoting Volokh, Eugene [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Isn't a restriction on speech that is outrageous, and
inflicts
severe
What makes it outrageous is not the content per se, but the content in
the context. And doesn't the old workhorse, our erstwhile objective
standard of outrageous to a reasonable person, save it from
unconstitutional vagueness?
Steve
On 11/1/07, Volokh, Eugene [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Steven Jamar
Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2007 11:17 AM
To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: IIED and vagueness
What makes it outrageous is not the content per se, but the content in
the context. And doesn't the old workhorse, our erstwhile objective
I don't think there is any vagueness at all in the tort of IIED as applied to
these funeral protests. I don't think the defendants were in doubt at all that
what they were doing would inflict serious emotional distress and would be
thought by almost everyone other than themselves (maybe even
PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Steven Jamar
Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2007 9:17 AM
To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: IIED and vagueness
What makes it outrageous is not the content per se, but the
content in the context. And doesn't the old workhorse, our
erstwhile
Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2007 10:03 AM
To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: IIED and vagueness
I don't think there is any vagueness at all in the tort of IIED
as applied to these funeral protests. I don't think the defendants were
Scarberry
Pepperdine
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Volokh, Eugene
Sent: Thu 11/1/2007 1:18 PM
To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: IIED and vagueness
I think the IIED tort is unconstitutionally vague on its face, as applied
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Scarberry, Mark
Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2007 10:46 AM
To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: IIED and vagueness
Then I suppose I'd be inclined
issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: IIED and vagueness
Then I suppose I'd be inclined to argue that IIED as applied in this
case is constitutional on Eugene's approach, because what the protesters
were doing was very much like fighting words and should not be
considered to be protected speech. I'm
PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Brownstein,
Alan
Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2007 10:58 AM
To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: IIED and vagueness
I'm not sure if this is technically fighting words, but I
suspect many people would agree
that
makes it targeted and very similar to fighting words.
Mark
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Volokh, Eugene
Sent: Thu 11/1/2007 1:47 PM
To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: IIED and vagueness
But Cohen v. California made clear
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Volokh, Eugene
Sent: Thu 11/1/2007 1:47 PM
To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: IIED and vagueness
But Cohen v. California made clear that fighting words require some
individualized insult of the targeted
issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: IIED and vagueness
But Cohen v. California made clear that fighting words require some
individualized insult of the targeted listener. Under the view you describe,
any speech that may offend a group of people -- for instance, harsh public
I'm sorry, Ed, but I'm missing the problem. Free exercise or free
speech -- is that the conflict you are positing as in conflict? If
so, I assume it is not a question directed to me since I don't think
the limitation on free speech violates the constitution even without
the free exercise
To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: IIED and vagueness
Just out of curiosity, what happens in a hypothetical if the
family of the soldier claims the funeral is a religious service which
deserves special protection from such disruption? Let's
To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: IIED and vagueness
Let me get this straight. We want a clear rule that applies
easily in all cases and so we just say let any speech happen
because we can't ever tell anything with certainty.
Sorry, Eugene, but the law hasn't ever been
You're right, I think. It's not an answer most soldiers and religious leaders
would necessarily like, but it's right.
It's more a problem in irony and public relations than law. It might work as a
segment on Boston Legal, but it's not enough of a legal issue for a legal
journal.
That's
On 11/1/07, Volokh, Eugene [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
(1) How does Hustler teach that IIED is a viable tort, as
applied to otherwise protected speech (or at least otherwise protected
speech on matters of public concern). True, it didn't hold that IIED is
impermissible as to otherwise
01, 2007 1:34 PM
To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: IIED and vagueness
(1) How does Hustler teach that IIED is a viable tort, as
applied to otherwise protected speech (or at least otherwise protected
speech on matters of public concern). True, it didn't hold that IIED
of public concern?
Alan Brownstein
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Volokh, Eugene
Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2007 1:34 PM
To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: IIED and vagueness
(1) How does Hustler teach
: Thursday, November 01, 2007 2:31 PM
To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: IIED and vagueness
Just to be clear here, Eugene. Leaving vagueness aside for the moment:
Are you arguing that all IIED decisions holding defendants
liable are unconstitutional unless they fall within
On 11/1/07, Volokh, Eugene [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
(1) How does Hustler teach that IIED is a viable tort, as
applied to otherwise protected speech (or at least
otherwise protected
speech on matters of public concern). True, it didn't hold
that IIED
is impermissible as to
PM
To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: IIED and vagueness
I think that (1) otherwise protected speech (i.e., speech that falls
outside the exceptions, and any new strict-scrutiny-justified
exclusions) should be as immune from IIED liability as from other liability
Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: IIED and vagueness
Well, it certainly seems outrageous to me but I suspect that other
reasonable people might regard the Code Pink demonstrations outside the
Walter Reed Army Medical Center as, if not equally outrageous, at least
comparable
Some of what I am about to say I have said before. But here goes
anyway.
What would be the risk of viewpoint discrimination, in a practical,
real-world, sense? I am not aware of any other groups who attempt to
inflict severe emotional distress on the occasion of the funeral of a
soldier killed
influenced by the jury's view about the viewpoint the
speech expresses.
Eugene
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Newsom Michael
Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2007 3:55 PM
To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: IIED
PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Brownstein, Alan
Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2007 2:58 PM
To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: IIED and vagueness
I understand that there is a clear sense in which the
protestors comments involve speech on a matter of public
concern
38 matches
Mail list logo
