-----Original Message-----
From: James Maule [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, October 13, 2003 4:16 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: to condemn Matthew Shepard,Pastor plans monument for City Pa rkTo go totally afield here, and presented in response to to the "is there
anything that can be done" nature of the original posting, flavored by a
self-provided invitation to be creative:is there any potential tort liability on the city?
Is the statement libelous?
Is Shepard a public figure?
Is the statement one of asserted fact or opinion?
Is the statement one of religious belief?
Can it be a statement of religious belief without words to that
effect?Is the city "publishing" the statement by permitting it to be in the
park?Is there intentional infliction of emotional distress upon others?
Does the First Amendment protect against intentional infliction of
emotional distress claims in the same manner it restricts libel claims?If the statement is one of asserted fact, is there an invasion of
privacy?If the city was exposed to potential tort liability, is that a basis
for refusing to let the monument be placed in the park?Can the list subscribers who are torts experts clarify anything in this
regard?Thanks
Jim
Jim Maule
Professor of Law, Villanova University School of Law
Villanova PA 19085
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://vls.law.vill.edu/prof/maule
President, TaxJEM Inc (computer assisted tax law instruction)
(www.taxjem.com)
Publisher, JEMBook Publishing Co. (www.jembook.com)
Owner/Developer, TaxCruncherPro (www.taxcruncherpro.com)
Maule Family Archivist & Genealogist (www.maulefamily.com)
Title: Re: to condemn Matthew Shepard,Pastor plans monument for City Pa rk
(1) In virtually all (or perhaps all)
states, libels of dead people aren't actionable. I suppose that family
members could bring an IIED claim, but I highly doubt it. (The law of
IIED, and the First Amendment defense, is actually not very well-developed here,
but I think we can be pretty confident that Hustler v. Falwell would be
applied to this case, especially if the IIED claim is brought by Shepard's
relatives.)
(2) Doing what the First Amendment requires would presumably
not be actionable under state law, so the issue remains: Does the First
Amendment public forum doctrine require that the city allow such a
monument?
Eugene
- Re: to condemn Matthew Shepard,Pastor plans monument for... Mark Graber
- Re: to condemn Matthew Shepard,Pastor plans monumen... Eugene Volokh
- Re: to condemn Matthew Shepard,Pastor plans monumen... James Maule
- Re: to condemn Matthew Shepard,Pastor plans mon... Eugene Volokh
- Re: to condemn Matthew Shepard,Pastor plans monumen... Barksdale, Yvette
