.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Steven Jamar
Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2007 11:22 AM
To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: Anti-gay church verdict
Could we not ban ALL demonstrations at funerals of private people
Tough call. Hustler v. Falwell says that intentional infliction of
emotional distress, when based on political speech, requires actual
malice. But there the IIED claim was based on the content of the
speech. Here, assuming the plaintiff's lawyer made a sensible jury
argument, the IIED claim
And, of course, unlike in Hustler, the persons at whom the speech was directed
here were not public figures.
On this point, I highly recommend Robert Post's article on Hustler, The
Constitutional Concept of Public Discourse: Outrageous Opinion, Democratic
Deliberation, Hustler Magazine v.
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Douglas Laycock
Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2007 5:02 AM
To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
Subject: Re: Anti-gay church verdict
Tough call. Hustler v. Falwell
Laycock
Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2007 5:02 AM
To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
Subject: Re: Anti-gay church verdict
Tough call. Hustler v. Falwell says that intentional
infliction
of emotional distress, when based on political speech, requires
actual
Of Volokh, Eugene
Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2007 10:17 AM
To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: Anti-gay church verdict
Yet surely the claim must have been based on the content of the speech as
well as the time, place, and manner. It's extremely unlikely that a jury
:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Steven Jamar
Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2007 11:22 AM
To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: Anti-gay church verdict
Could we not ban ALL demonstrations at funerals of private people?
That would be content neutral. And we can ban the greater, can we
]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Joel Sogol
Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2007 11:34 AM
To: 'Law Religion issues for Law Academics'
Subject: RE: Anti-gay church verdict
Bsog
Joel L. Sogol
811 21st Ave.
Tuscaloosa, ALabama 35401
ph (205) 345-0966
fx (205) 345-0971
email: [EMAIL PROTECTED
PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Steven Jamar
Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2007 9:22 AM
To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: Anti-gay church verdict
Could we not ban ALL demonstrations at funerals of private people?
That would be content neutral. And we can ban the greater,
can we
.
Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2007 9:15 AM
To: 'Law Religion issues for Law Academics'
Subject: RE: Anti-gay church verdict
Isn't this analogous to Frisby, approving a ban on targeted
picketing as content-neutral even though the privacy interest being
.
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Douglas Laycock
Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2007 8:37 AM
To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
Subject: RE: Anti-gay church verdict
Well, it's a combination of the two
for Law Academics
Subject: RE: Anti-gay church verdict
I agree that it is the question -- but it's important to recognize,
I think, that this is a core content-based speech restriction case, not
just one that is to be judged under the more forgiving Ward v. Rock
Against Racism content-neutral
12 matches
Mail list logo
