No one is guaranteed the right to be free from emotional distress. However, the Constitution doesn't protect the right to deliberately engage in provoking it, either. That's the crux of the Free Speech issue. There are a lot of clearly-defined cases in which the outlines of protected and unprotected speech are established. I think it's Times v. Sullivan, for example, that establishes the malice standard for libel.
This was a civil case. It bypassed completely whether or not the Westboro Baptists had the *right* to say what they did (which they do) and addressed the matter of whether they should be held accountable for the effects of their exercise of free speech. That he didn't notice at the time mitigates his argument somewhat, but the burden of proof for 'emotional distress' is on the plaintiff in a case like this, so he had to establish to the court's satisfaction that his distress wasn't just a matter of having his feelings hurt.
The 'free' in 'Free Speech' doesn't mean it's free of consequences. The Phelps' protests meet a number of the criteria for abusive and injurious speech, which they've successfully avoided being called on so far because people tried to attack them in criminal courts and with legislative action - both of which the Constitution rightfully protects them from. However, the Constitution doesn't protect you from civil trial - for defamation, for example. There is by no means a blanket assumption that all speech is protected. It doesn't protect you against a charge of slander, or libel, or incitement to riot, and it doesn't protect you from civil redress for verbal assault, provided malice and damaging effect can be proved.
I like this verdict, because it says, "Prevent you from speaking your mind? I wouldn't dream of it. Force you to accept accountability for your words? Absolutely."
People pull this 'sticks and stones' defense, but it's not true. Words and images can be incredibly emotionally damaging, especially to someone already engaged in the grieving process.
I believe this establishes where the line between 'freedom to speak' and 'freedom to verbally abuse' exists, and I'm glad to see that, because abuse masquerading as First Amendment freedoms ultimately weakens the Constitution.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Re: How about emotional distress?
Date: 2007-11-02 11:43 pm (UTC)This was a civil case. It bypassed completely whether or not the Westboro Baptists had the *right* to say what they did (which they do) and addressed the matter of whether they should be held accountable for the effects of their exercise of free speech. That he didn't notice at the time mitigates his argument somewhat, but the burden of proof for 'emotional distress' is on the plaintiff in a case like this, so he had to establish to the court's satisfaction that his distress wasn't just a matter of having his feelings hurt.
The 'free' in 'Free Speech' doesn't mean it's free of consequences. The Phelps' protests meet a number of the criteria for abusive and injurious speech, which they've successfully avoided being called on so far because people tried to attack them in criminal courts and with legislative action - both of which the Constitution rightfully protects them from. However, the Constitution doesn't protect you from civil trial - for defamation, for example. There is by no means a blanket assumption that all speech is protected. It doesn't protect you against a charge of slander, or libel, or incitement to riot, and it doesn't protect you from civil redress for verbal assault, provided malice and damaging effect can be proved.
I like this verdict, because it says, "Prevent you from speaking your mind? I wouldn't dream of it. Force you to accept accountability for your words? Absolutely."
People pull this 'sticks and stones' defense, but it's not true. Words and images can be incredibly emotionally damaging, especially to someone already engaged in the grieving process.
I believe this establishes where the line between 'freedom to speak' and 'freedom to verbally abuse' exists, and I'm glad to see that, because abuse masquerading as First Amendment freedoms ultimately weakens the Constitution.
Love,
Rowan