ADVERTISEMENT



Google       

Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Legal Commentary Blogs -> The Volokh Conspiracy

OR PHONE (866) 635-1838 for Bankruptcy Help, (866) 635-6190 for Divorce,
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense

Find a Local Lawyer

Bankruptcy (866) 635-1838
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402

Bookmark

Legal Commentary

: The Volokh Conspiracy

Funeral Picketing / Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress Case Going to the Supreme Court

By Eugene Volokh

ADVERTISEMENTS

[1:56 pm: Bumped up above the more specific posts on the case.]

The Supreme Court has just agreed to hear Snyder v. Phelps, the funeral picketing case. I think the lower court decision is quite right, and I worry that the Court?s decision signals the Justices? willingness to overturn it. But I hope the Justices will do the right thing, notwithstanding the speech involved.

The Fourth Circuit?s Snyder v. Phelps decision reversed a $5 million intentional infliction of emotional distress / invasion of privacy verdict against the Phelpsians (that?s the ?God Hates Fags? group) who picketed the funeral of a slain soldier.

The Fourth Circuit essentially concluded that, at least where speech on matters of public concern is involved (see pp. 25?26), the First Amendment precludes liability based on ?statements on matters of public concern that fail to contain a ?provably false factual connotation?? (see pp. 16?20). This applies not just to libel liability, but also liability for intentional infliction of emotional distress and intrusion upon seclusion (the specific form of invasion of privacy alleged here). If the speech fits within ?one of the categorical exclusions from First Amendment protection, such as those for obscenity or ?fighting words?? (p. 18 n.12) it might be actionable. But if it?s outside those exceptions, then it can?t form the basis for an intentional infliction of emotional distress or intrusion upon seclusion lawsuit ? regardless of whether it?s ?offensive and shocking,? or whether it constitutes ?intentional, reckless, or extreme and outrageous conduct causing ... severe emotional distress? (p. 23).

I think the Fourth Circuit was quite right, for the reasons that I give in today?s other posts on the case. In particular, the decision helps forestall similar liability for other allegedly outrageously offensive speech, such as display of the Mohammed cartoons (or other restrictions on such speech, such as campus speech codes? being applied to punish display of the cartoons).

The Fourth Circuit did leave open the possibility that some content-neutral restrictions on funeral picketing may be imposed (p. 32), but it didn?t discuss this in detail. For more on that, see here. We?ll see this coming Term what the Supreme Court has to say on all this.


Copyright © 2010
This feed is for personal, non-commercial use only.
The use of this feed on other websites breaches copyright. If this content is not in your news reader, it makes the page you are viewing an infringement of the copyright. (Digital Fingerprint:
)

Full post as published by The Volokh Conspiracy on March 08, 2010 (boomark / email).

Bloggers, promote your law blog by nominating your blog for inclusion in USLaw.com's Law Blog Directory and RSS Reader. Benefits described.
Related Law Articles

Lawsuits and Settlements

Related Searches

























































































































US Law
#1 Online Legal Resource













Your Blog Subscriptions
Subscribe to blogs

10,000+ Law Job Listings
Lawyer . Police . Paralegal . Etc
Earn a law-related degree
Are you the author of this blog? Adding USLaw.com to your Blogroll increases relevance. You qualify to display a USLaw Network badge.
Suggest changes to this blog's description or nominate another for inclusion. Register for updates.


Practice Area
Zip Code:

Contact a Lawyer Now!






0.0025 secs (from cache 10/31/26 21:54:11)