"Prevent you from speaking your mind? I wouldn't dream of it. Force you to accept accountability for your words? Absolutely."
Actually, considering some of the wording by the judge, yes, he does say that he hopes to prevent someone from speaking his mind:
In his instructions to the jury U.S. District Judge Richard Bennett stated that the First Amendment protection of free speech has limits, including vulgar, offensive and shocking statements, and that the jury must decide "whether the defendant's actions would be highly offensive to a reasonable person, whether they were extreme and outrageous and whether these actions were so offensive and shocking as to not be entitled to First Amendment protection."
I think that is a very slippery slope, because the judge DID say that the first amendment doesn't protect SOME offensive speech.
Defamation and slander require you to show injury. Emotional injury is an EXTREMELY slippery slope.
Let's sue rap artists for using the word ho and nigga.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Re: How about emotional distress?
Date: 2007-11-03 12:05 am (UTC)Actually, considering some of the wording by the judge, yes, he does say that he hopes to prevent someone from speaking his mind:
In his instructions to the jury U.S. District Judge Richard Bennett stated that the First Amendment protection of free speech has limits, including vulgar, offensive and shocking statements, and that the jury must decide "whether the defendant's actions would be highly offensive to a reasonable person, whether they were extreme and outrageous and whether these actions were so offensive and shocking as to not be entitled to First Amendment protection."
I think that is a very slippery slope, because the judge DID say that the first amendment doesn't protect SOME offensive speech.
Defamation and slander require you to show injury.
Emotional injury is an EXTREMELY slippery slope.
Let's sue rap artists for using the word ho and nigga.