Apr. 7th, 2010

radarrider: (Default)
You may not agree with at least part of her analysis, but I'm willing to bet you'll agree with Ann Coulter when she says:

True, speech will often be involved in inflicting emotional distress on someone, say, for example, standing outside a funeral with signs that say "God Hates You!"

Similarly, words are used in committing treason ("The Americans are over here!"), robbery ("Your money or your life!") and sexual harassment ("Have sex with me or you're fired."). Copyright law prohibits speech that uses someone else's words, and insider trading and trade-secrets laws prohibit the use of words revealing insider information or trade secrets.

The fact that "speech" was involved in the Fred Phelps cult's assault on Matthew Snyder's funeral is a mundane and irrelevant fact. The question is: Did that speech constitute intentional infliction of emotional distress? Hey, look! That reasonable man over there is nodding his head "yes." If so, the First Amendment is as irrelevant as it is to a copyright law violation.

Profile

radarrider: (Default)
radarrider

August 2010

S M T W T F S
123 4567
891011121314
15 161718192021
22232425262728
29 3031    

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Jul. 27th, 2017 08:43 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios