DOCSLIB.ORG

The Suppression of Abortion Protesters' Free Speech Rights

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Suppression of Abortion Protesters' Free Speech Rights DePaul Law Review Volume 51 Issue 3 Spring 2002: Symposium - The End of Article 8 Adolescence Double Standards: The Suppression of Abortion Protesters' Free Speech Rights Christopher P. Keleher Follow this and additional works at: https://via.library.depaul.edu/law-review Recommended Citation Christopher P. Keleher, Double Standards: The Suppression of Abortion Protesters' Free Speech Rights, 51 DePaul L. Rev. 825 (2002) Available at: https://via.library.depaul.edu/law-review/vol51/iss3/8 This Comments is brought to you for free and open access by the College of Law at Via Sapientiae. It has been accepted for inclusion in DePaul Law Review by an authorized editor of Via Sapientiae. For more information, please contact [email protected]. DOUBLE STANDARDS: THE SUPPRESSION OF ABORTION PROTESTERS' FREE SPEECH RIGHTS "We should be eternally vigilant against attempts to check the ex- pression of opinions that we loathe."' "A function of free speech ...is to invite dispute. It may indeed when it induces ... unrest ... or even best serve its high purpose2 stirs people to anger." INTRODUCTION Free speech is necessary for a democracy. It prevents government oppression and tyranny while permitting ideas to flow freely and unin- hibited. It is important to keep free speech, from whatever source, unencumbered. Stifling free speech has resulted in devastating effects in other countries, eventually leading to their demise. 3 This issue takes on even greater importance in the United States because this country was founded on the principles of freedom of speech, press, 4 and religion. Most Americans would agree that free speech is a fundamental right that deserves protection. 5 However, throughout this country's history, many issues have tested the boundaries of free speech, one of the most controversial being abortion. Abortion remains one of the most divisive issues our nation has ever faced. Both sides of the abor- tion debate firmly believe their position is correct. Further, the sub- ject of abortion has permeated many aspects of our culture, including 6 politics, medicine, law, women's liberation, and religion. Whether an individual is a staunch supporter of abortion rights, an advocate of the pro-life movement, or one who is oblivious to the is- sue, it is important to consider the implications of the United States Supreme Court's recent limitations on the free speech of abortion 1. Abrams v. United States, 250 U.S. 616, 630 (1919) (Holmes, J.,dissenting). 2. Terminiello v. Chicago, 337 U.S. 1,4 (1949) (Douglas, J.). 3. See HARRISON E. SALISBURY, RUSSIA 39-43 (1965). 4. U.S. CONST. amend. I. 5. RODNEY A. SMOLLA, SMOLLA & NIMMER ON FREEDOM OF SPEECH - A TREATISE ON THE FIRST AMENDMENT 1-2 (1994). 6. See generally ABORTION, MEDICINE, & THE LAW (J. Douglas Butler & David F. Walbert eds., 4th ed. 1992) (examining the various legal, political, ethical, religious, and medical aspects surrounding abortion). DEPAUL LAW REVIEW [Vol. 51:825 protesters. The Court has gradually limited free speech over a period of six years through three separate cases. 7 In each consecutive case, the Court seemed to go one step further than before, as if it were attempting not to suppress too much free speech at once. The Court's willingness to severely limit the speech of the pro-life movement serves as a warning to any protest group that may one day find itself on the wrong side of the Court. Part II of this Comment will explore the history of free speech from its origin to the present, as well as the Supreme Court's role in shaping that right. 8 This section will also examine the history of the pro-life movement and abortion clinic violence. 9 In addition, Part II will ex- amine free speech cases concerning several contexts, such as the issues of abortion and civil rights. 10 Part III will analyze the Court's treat- ment of free speech in the context of abortion, comparing it to the treatment of non-abortion free speech cases.1 Part IV will discuss the actual impact this line of cases has had on lower courts throughout the country and whether these restrictions are warranted. 12 Part IV will then discuss the potential impact this line of abortion protest cases might have, not only for the pro-life protesters, but also on the First Amendment itself.13 II. BACKGROUND A. The History of Free Speech "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assem- ble, and to petition the court for redress of grievances. ' 14 With these words, the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States defined several principles upon which this nation was founded. The First Amendment protects many of the rights Americans value most, such as freedom of speech, press, religion, assembly, and petition.15 While these freedoms are highly valued, the amount of protection ac- 7. See Madsen v. Women's Health Ctr., 512 U.S. 753 (1994); Schenck v. Pro-Choice Network of W. N.Y., 519 U.S. 357 (1997): Hill v. Colorado, 530 U.S. 703 (2000). 8. See infra notes 14-85 and accompanying text. 9. See infra notes 86-214 and accompanying text. 10. See infra notes 215-343 and accompanying text. 11. See infra notes 344-504 and accompanying text. 12. See infra notes 505-596 and accompanying text. 13. See infra notes 597-623 and accompanying text. 14. U.S. CONST. amend. 1. 15. SMOLLA, supra note 5, at 1-2. See, e.g., Frederick Schauer, The Second-Best First Amend- ment, 31 WM. & MARY L. REV. 1 (1989) (discussing the importance and reasoning behind the 2002] DOUBLE STANDARDS corded to these rights has become controversial because of issues such as hate speech, 16 pornography,' 7 and other offensive speech.' 8 1. The Early Years The First Amendment to the Constitution has been a controversial principle throughout the history of this country. 19 In fact, before the writing of the Constitution, many states refused to ratify the Constitu- without a Bill of Rights. 20 The states did not ratify the Bill of tion 2 1 Rights until 1791, fifteen years after the signing of the Constitution. While the enactment of the First Amendment granted the right of free speech, it did not define what speech was included or the limita- tions upon it.22 Thus, since the inception of the Bill of Rights, there have been different interpretations 23 as to exactly how far this right extends.24 Most of the debate about the First Amendment and the breadth of its protection revolves around the history of the First 25 Amendment. First Amendment and the background justification for it); Kent Greenawalt, Free Speech Justifi- cations, 89 COLUM. L. REV. 119 (1989). 16. Charles R. Lawrence III, Frontiers Of Legal Thought I1, The New First Amendment: If He Hollers Let Him Go: Regulating Racist Speech On Campus, 1990 DUKE L.J. 431 (1990) (discuss- ing racist speech on college campuses and the regulation of such speech). 17. Compare, CATHARINE A. MACKINNON, ONLY WORDS 25 (1993) (arguing that pornogra- phy should not be considered in light of the First Amendment, but rather through the Four- teenth Amendment), with NADINE STROSSEN, DEFENDING PORNOGRAPHY: FREE SPEECH, SEX, AND THE FIGHT FOR WOMEN'S RIGHTS 14 (1995) (stating that "we adamantly oppose any effort to restrict sexual speech not only because it would violate our cherished First Amendment free- doms . but also because it would undermine our equality, our status, our dignity, and our autonomy"). 18. SMOLLA, supra note 5, at 1-2. See also Alan C. Kors & Harvey A. Silverglate, Codes of Silence, Who's Gagging Free Speech on Campus-And Why, REASON, Nov. 1998, at 22 (observ- ing First Amendment infringements at universities across the country); Nadine Strossen, Political Correctness: Avoiding Extremism in the PC Controversy, in VISIONS OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT FOR A NEW MILLENNIUM 14, 14 (Fred H. Cate ed., 1992) (considering free expression in light of the political correctness phenomena). 19. 0. JOHN ROGGE, THE FIRST & THE FIFTH 12 (1971). 20. Id. It was argued that since the federal government had enumerated powers, a Bill of Rights was not necessary; many also felt the state governments would protect individual rights. Id. 21. NAT HENTOFF, THE FIRST FREEDOM: THE TUMULTUOUS HISTORY OF FREE SPEECH IN AMERICA 74 (1980). 22. DANIEL A. FARBER, THE FIRST AMENDMENT 9 (1998). The legislative history surround- ing the Amendment is incomplete and answers very little. Id. at 9-10. 23. Some argue that the words 'no law' contained within the First Amendment mean exactly that. See generally TINSLEY E. YARBROUGH, MR. JUSTICE BLACK AND HIS CRITICS (1988) (evaluating Justice Black's judicial and constitutional philosophy, along with the arguments raised by his critics). 24. SMOLLA, supra note 5, at 1-2. For the history regarding free speech prior to enactment of First Amendment, see VINCENT BURANELLI, TIlE TRIAL OF PETER ZENGER (1957). 25. FARBER, supra note 22, at 9-10. DEPAUL LAW REVIEW [Vol. 51:825 One of the first tests of the interpretation of the First Amendment came only a few years after the adoption of the Bill of Rights. 26 In 1798, Congress passed the Sedition Act,27 which prohibited certain speech against the United States government.2 8 The Act was ex- tremely oppressive to free speech, severely limiting all citizens' right to free speech. 29 While debates surrounding the Act are unreliable as evidence, some view the passing of the Sedition Act as an indication that the Framers wanted to maintain the English Common Law 30 no- tions of freedom of the press and speech.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • HUSTLER HOLLYWOOD Real Estate Press Kit
    HUSTLER HOLLYWOOD Real Estate Press Kit http://www.hustlerhollywoodstores.com Phone: +1(323) 651-5400 X 7698 | e-mail: [email protected] Presentation Overview Hustler Hollywood Overview Real Estate Criteria Store Portfolio Testimonials http://www.hustlerhollywoodstores.com Phone: +1(323) 651-5400 X 7698 | e-mail: [email protected] Company History Hustler Hollywood The vision to diversify the Hustler brand and enter the mainstream retail market was realized in 1998 when the first Hustler Hollywood store opened on the iconic Sunset Strip in West Hollywood, CA. Larry Flynt's innovative formula for retailing immediately garnered attention, resulting in coverage in Allure and Cosmopolitan magazines as well as periodic appearances on E! Entertainment Network, the HBO series Entourage and Sex and the City. Since that time Hustler Hollywood has expanded to 25 locations nationwide ranging in size from 3,200 to 15,000 square feet. Hustler Hollywood showcases fashion-forward, provocative apparel and intimates, jewelry, home décor, souvenirs, novelties, and gifts; all in an open floor plan, contemporary design and lighting, vibrant colors, custom fixtures, and entirely viewable from outside through floor to ceiling windows. http://www.hustlerhollywoodstores.com Phone: +1(323) 651-5400 X 7698 | e-mail: [email protected] Retail Stores Hustler Hollywood, although now mimicked by a handful of competitors, has stood distinctly apart from peers by offering consumers, particularly couples, a refreshing bright welcoming store to shop in. Each of the 25 stores are well lit and immaculately clean, reflecting a creative effort to showcase a fun but comfortable atmosphere in every detail of design, fixture placement, and product assortment.
    [Show full text]
  • VISIONS Winter 2005 Please Scroll Down to Begin Reading Our Issue
    VISIONS Winter 2005 Please scroll down to begin reading our issue. Thanks! Brian Lee ‘06, Editor in Chief [email protected] LETTER FROM THE EDITORS WINTER 2005 VOLUME vi, ISSUE 1 Welcome to the Winter 2005 issue of VISIONS. We hope We would like to sincerely thank our artists, poets, you enjoy the quality and variety of artistic, poetic, writers, and staff members for making VISIONS Winter and literary contributions celebrating the diversity of 2005 a reality—without all of your hours of work and the Asian American community at Brown. creativity VISIONS could not be where it is today. We would also like to thank Dean Kisa Takesue of the VISIONS boasts a dedicated staff of writers, artists, Third World Center and Office of Student Life, who and designers, and maintains a strong editorial staff serves as the administrative advisor of VISIONS, for dedicated to the constant improvement of this truly her ideas, inspiration, and support. We would like unique publication. As many of you know, since to extend our appreciation to the individuals and our Spring 2004 issue we have been in the process groups who generously sponsored this publication of vastly improving the quality of our publication, and gave us their belief in us to succeed, and we transforming it from a small pamphlet into its current are extremely grateful to our supporters in the Brown form. This has been possible thanks to the efforts of community for taking an interest in this publication our staff members as well as our generous sponsors in and the issues it raises.
    [Show full text]
  • Outrageous Opinion, Democratic Deliberation, and Hustler Magazine V
    VOLUME 103 JANUARY 1990 NUMBER 3 HARVARD LAW REVIEW THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONCEPT OF PUBLIC DISCOURSE: OUTRAGEOUS OPINION, DEMOCRATIC DELIBERATION, AND HUSTLER MAGAZINE V. FALWELL Robert C. Post TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE I. HUSTLER MAGAZINE V. FALWELL ........................................... 6o5 A. The Background of the Case ............................................. 6o6 B. The Supreme Court Opinion ............................................. 612 C. The Significance of the Falwell Opinion: Civility and Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress ..................................................... 616 11. THE FIRST AMENDMENT AND PUBLIC DISCOURSE ............................. 626 A. Public Discourse and Community ........................................ 627 B. The Structure of Public Discourse ............... ..................... 633 C. The Nature of Critical Interaction Within Public Discourse ................. 638 D. The First Amendment, Community, and Public Discourse ................... 644 Im. PUBLIC DISCOURSE AND THE FALIWELL OPINION .............................. 646 A. The "Outrageousness" Standard .......................................... 646 B. The Distinction Between Speech and Its Motivation ........................ 647 C. The Distinction Between Fact and Opinion ............................... 649 i. Some Contemporary Understandings of the Distinction Between Fact and Opinion ............................................................ 650 (a) Rhetorical Hyperbole ............................................. 650 (b)
    [Show full text]
  • Online Media and the 2016 US Presidential Election
    Partisanship, Propaganda, and Disinformation: Online Media and the 2016 U.S. Presidential Election The Harvard community has made this article openly available. Please share how this access benefits you. Your story matters Citation Faris, Robert M., Hal Roberts, Bruce Etling, Nikki Bourassa, Ethan Zuckerman, and Yochai Benkler. 2017. Partisanship, Propaganda, and Disinformation: Online Media and the 2016 U.S. Presidential Election. Berkman Klein Center for Internet & Society Research Paper. Citable link http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:33759251 Terms of Use This article was downloaded from Harvard University’s DASH repository, and is made available under the terms and conditions applicable to Other Posted Material, as set forth at http:// nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:dash.current.terms-of- use#LAA AUGUST 2017 PARTISANSHIP, Robert Faris Hal Roberts PROPAGANDA, & Bruce Etling Nikki Bourassa DISINFORMATION Ethan Zuckerman Yochai Benkler Online Media & the 2016 U.S. Presidential Election ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This paper is the result of months of effort and has only come to be as a result of the generous input of many people from the Berkman Klein Center and beyond. Jonas Kaiser and Paola Villarreal expanded our thinking around methods and interpretation. Brendan Roach provided excellent research assistance. Rebekah Heacock Jones helped get this research off the ground, and Justin Clark helped bring it home. We are grateful to Gretchen Weber, David Talbot, and Daniel Dennis Jones for their assistance in the production and publication of this study. This paper has also benefited from contributions of many outside the Berkman Klein community. The entire Media Cloud team at the Center for Civic Media at MIT’s Media Lab has been essential to this research.
    [Show full text]
  • Facilitating Peaceful Protests
    ACADEMY BRIEFING No. 5 Facilitating Peaceful Protests January 2014 Geneva Academy of International Humanitarian Law and Human Rights Geneva Académie de droit international humanitaire et de droits humains à Genève Academ The Academy, a joint centre of ISBN: 978-2-9700866-3-5 © Geneva Academy of International Humanitarian Law and Human Rights, January 2014. Acknowledgements This Academy Briefing was written by Milena Costas Trascasas, Research Fellow, and Stuart Casey-Maslen, Head of Research, at the Geneva Academy of International Humanitarian Law and Human Rights (Geneva Academy). The Academy would like to thank all those who commented on an earlier draft of this briefing, in particular Anja Bienart and Brian Wood of Amnesty International, and Neil Corney of Omega Research Foundation. The Geneva Academy would also like to thank the Swiss Federal Department of Foreign Affairs (DFAE) for its support to the Academy’s work on facilitating peaceful protests, especially the Human Security Division for its funding of the publication of this Briefing. Editing, design, and layout by Plain Sense, Geneva. Disclaimer This Academy Briefing is the work of the authors. The views expressed in it do not necessarily reflect those of the project’s supporters or of anyone who provided input to, or commented on, a draft of this Briefing. The designation of states or territories does not imply any judgement by the Geneva Academy, the DFAE, or any other body or individual, regarding the legal status of such states or territories, or their authorities and institutions, or the delimitation of their boundaries, or the status of any states or territories that border them.
    [Show full text]
  • Street Speech Update Protests
    Know Your Rights Guide: Protests This guide covers the legal protections you have while protesting or otherwise exercising your free speech rights in public places. Although some of the legal principles are firmly established, as with many areas of law, free speech law is complex and continually developing. Generally speaking, you are free to exercise your right to protest, but the government may impose restrictions if you are infringing on the rights or safety of others. Where, when, and how can I protest? Can the government restrict where, when, and how protests may take place? Yes. The government may impose reasonable restrictions on the time, place and manner of speech, but these restrictions cannot be based on the content of the speech. For example, speech may be restricted if it is exceedingly loud in a residential area at 2am. On the other hand, the government may not disallow a protest because it has an anti-war message. Speech at certain “sensitive areas,” such as health care facilities, abortion clinics, military bases, and airport terminals, may also be subject to reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions. For example, near health care facilities, there can be rules about not blocking entrances and not making too much noise. Can protesters march in the street? Yes, but… many cities require permits if a march will block traffic; the rules for obtaining permits and enforcement of permit requirements vary by jurisdiction. If you march without a permit and block traffic while refusing an order from police to get out of the street, you could be arrested or detained.
    [Show full text]
  • Kendall Fields Guide for Mental Health Professionals in The
    THE AMERICAN ACADEMY OF CLINICAL SEXOLOGISTS AT MAIMONIDES UNIVERSITY GUIDE FOR MENTAL HEALTH PROFESSIONALS IN THE RECOGNITION OF SUICIDE AND RISKS TO ADOLESCENT HOMOSEXUAL MALES A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY OF CLINICAL SEXOLOGISTS AT MAIMONIDES UNIVERSITY IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY BY KENDALL FIELDS NORTH MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA DECEMBER 2005 Copyright © by Kendall L. Fields All rights reserved ii DISSERTATION COMMITTEE William Granzig, Ph.D., MPH, FAACS. Advisor and Committee Chair James O Walker, Ph.D. Committee Member Peggy Lipford McKeal, Ph.D. NCC, LMHC Committee Member Approved by dissertation Committee Maimonides University North Miami Beach, Florida Signature Date _________________________________ William Granzig, Ph.D. James Walker, Ph.D. _ Peggy Lipford McKeal, Ph.D. iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to express my sincere gratitude to those who assisted in the formulation of this dissertation: Dr. William Granzig, professor, advisor, and friend, who without his guidance, leadership, and perseverance this endeavor would not have taken place. To Dr. Walker, thank you for your time, patience, insight and continued support. To Dr. McKeal, thanks for you inspiration and guidance. You kept me grounded and on track during times when my motivation was waning. To Dr. Bernie Sue Newman, Temple University, School of Social Administration, Department of Social Work and in memory of Peter Muzzonigro for allowing me to reprint portions of their book. To those professionals who gave of their time to complete and return the survey questionnaires. To my darling wife, Irene Susan Fields, who provided support and faith in me.
    [Show full text]
  • Commentary to the Declaration on Human Rights Defenders
    Commentary to the Declaration on the Right and Responsibility of Individuals, Groups and Organs of Society to Promote and Protect Universally Recognized Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms المقررة الخاصة المعىية بحالة المدافعيه عه حقوق اﻹوسان، 联合国人权维护者处境问题特别报告员 UN Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders Rapporteuse spéciale sur la situation des défenseurs des droits de l’homme Специальный докладчик по вопросу о положении правозащитников Relatora Especial sobre la situación de los defensores de los derechos humanos July 2011 2 Commentary to the Historical background In the year 2000, the Commission on Human Rights requested the Secretary- General to establish a mandate on human rights defenders. The Commission‘s intention was to give support to implementation of the Declaration on human rights defenders and also to gather information on the situation of human rights defenders around the world (see Resolution 2000/61 establishing the mandate). In August 2000, Ms. Hina Jilani was named by the Secretary General as Special Representative of the Secretary-General on the situation of human rights defenders. Her mandate was renewed by the Commission in 2003 (Resolution 2003/64) and by the Human Rights Council in 2007 (Resolution 5/1). In March 2008, the Human Rights Council, with Resolution 7/8, decided to renew the mandate on human rights defenders for a period of three years. The Human Rights Council appointed Ms. Margaret Sekaggya as Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders. Mandate The mandate on human rights defenders is broad and stipulates that the Special Rapporteur‘s main roles are to: seek, receive, examine and respond to information on the situation of human rights defenders; establish cooperation and conduct dialogue with governments and other interested actors on the promotion and effective implementation of the Declaration; recommend effective strategies better to protect human rights defenders and follow up on these recommendations; integrate a gender perspective throughout her work.
    [Show full text]
  • Alt-Reality Leaves Its Mark on Presidential
    Fall Dispatches > CHARLES J. SYKES Alt-reality leaves its mark on presidential campaign With the arrival of fall, an anxious electorate increas- ingly feels like the kids in the back seat asking their parents, “Are we there … yet?” Some of us are even old enough to remember when round-the-clock television commercials were the most annoying aspect of our endless political campaigns. That now seems a calmer, gentler time. support is not a wise decision of his,” Palin continued. Palin soon was joined by such conservative luminaries as Ann Coulter and Michelle Malkin, who parachuted into None of the above Ryan’s district on behalf of his opponent, Paul Nehlen, who The current mood was captured in a late August focus also enjoyed the full-throated group held in Brookfield, Wisconsin. Reported The Washing- support of the alt-reality ton Post: conservative media. Foremost “For a small group of undecided among Nehlen’s media cheer- voters here, the presidential choices leaders was Breibart.com, this year are bleak: Hillary Clinton which headlined his momen- is a ‘liar’ with a lifetime of political tum on a nearly daily basis. skullduggery and a ruthless agenda for “Ann Coulter lights Wis- power, while Donald Trump is your consin on fire for Paul Nehlen ‘drunk uncle’ who can’t be trusted against Paul Ryan: ‘This to listen even to the good advice he’s is it, this is your last chance paying for. to save America,’ ” Breitbart “Describing the election as a headlined. On the day of cesspool, 12 swing voters participat- the Aug.
    [Show full text]
  • Standing up Against Wealth-Shaming,The US Chamber
    Standing Up Against Wealth- Shaming America, we have a bullying epidemic. No, not the school bullying issues that get constant attention from Hollywood, the White House and the media. No, not the “fat-shaming” and “body-shaming” outbreaks on Facebook. The problem is wealth- shaming. Class-shaming. Success-shaming. The State of the Job Creator is under siege. Last week, a prominent self-made tech mogul dared to diagnose the problem publicly. His passionate letter to The Wall Street Journal decried the “progressive war on the American 1 percent.” He called on the left to stop demonizing “the rich,” and he condemned the Occupy movement’s “rising tide of hatred.” The mini-manifesto was newsworthy because this truth-teller is not a GOP politician or conservative activist or Fox News personality. As he points out, he lives in the “epicenter of progressive thought, San Francisco.” No matter. The mob is shooting the messenger anyway. But maybe, just maybe, his critical message in defense of our nation’s achievers will transcend, inspire, embolden and prevail. The letter-writer is Tom Perkins, a Silicon Valley pioneer with an MIT degree in electrical engineering and computer science and a Harvard MBA. He started out at the bottom at Hewlett-Packard, founded his own separate laser company on the side and then teamed up with fellow entrepreneur Eugene Kleiner to establish one of the nation’s oldest and most important venture capital firms, Kleiner Perkins Caufield and Byers. A hands-on dynamo, Perkins immersed himself in the science and technology of the companies in his portfolio.
    [Show full text]
  • Hustler Magazine V. Falwell: the Application of the Actual Malice Standard to Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress Claims
    Case Comments Hustler Magazine v. Falwell: The Application of the Actual Malice Standard to Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress Claims I. INTRODUCTION "It is firmly settled that under our Constitution the public expression of ideas may not be prohibited merely because the ideas themselves are offensive to some of their hearers."' The constitutional protection provided by the first amendment, however, is not absolute2 and does not protect certain categories of communications such as defamation, 3 obscenity, 4 or incitement. 5 In Hustler Magazine v. Falwell,6 the Supreme Court held that a public figure who was the subject of an offensive parody could not recover damages for intentional infliction of emotional distress unless he or she established that the underlying publication contained a false statement of fact and that the defendant acted with "actual malice." 7 These two requirements guarantee the defendant the same level of first amendment protection whether the plaintiff pleads defamation or emotional distress. This Comment focuses on the first amendment protection accorded media de- fendants who are sued for intentional infliction of emotional distress. It begins by examining the recent Supreme Court decision which applied the actual malice standard to an intentional infliction of emotional distress claim. Second, it considers the protection provided by the actual malice standard in defamation actions. Third, the expanding use of the intentional infliction of emotional distress tort against media defendants is evaluated. Fourth, intentional infliction of emotional distress and def- amation claims are distinguished. Finally, this Comment concludes by evaluating the Supreme Court's decision and its possible effect on first amendment jurisprudence.
    [Show full text]
  • Ending the Torture Trade: the Path to Global Controls On
    ENDING THE TORTURE TRADE THE PATH TO GLOBAL CONTROLS ON THE ‘TOOLS OF TORTURE’ Amnesty International is a global movement of more than 7 million people who campaign for a world where human rights are enjoyed by all. Our vision is for every person to enjoy all the rights enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other international human rights standards. We are independent of any government, political ideology, economic interest or religion and are funded mainly by our membership and public donations. The Omega Research Foundation (Omega) is an independent UK-based research organisation. We are dedicated to providing rigorous, objective, evidence-based research on the manufacture, trade in, and use of, military, security and police technologies. © Amnesty International 2020 Cover image: © Vernon Yuen/NurPhoto/Getty Images Except where otherwise noted, content in this document is licensed under a Creative Commons (attribution, non-commercial, no derivatives, international 4.0) licence. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/legalcode For more information please visit the permissions page on our website: www.amnesty.org Where material is attributed to a copyright owner other than Amnesty International this material is not subject to the Creative Commons licence. First published in 2020 by Amnesty International Ltd Peter Benenson House, 1 Easton Street, London WC1X 0DW, UK Index: ACT 30/3363/2020 Original language: English amnesty.org CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 4 1. USE OF ‘TOOLS OF TORTURE’ IN CUSTODIAL SETTINGS 7 1.1 INHERENTLY ABUSIVE EQUIPMENT 7 1.1.1 DIRECT CONTACT ELECTRIC SHOCK WEAPONS 7 1.1.2 ABUSIVE RESTRAINTS 9 1.2 EQUIPMENT WITH A LEGITIMATE FUNCTION 11 1.2.1 KINETIC IMPACT WEAPONS: BATONS AND TRUNCHEONS 11 1.2.2 RESTRAINTS 13 1.2.3 CHEMICAL IRRITANTS 13 2.
    [Show full text]