Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress is a recognized tort. The first amendment protects you from government action, it does not protect you from being sued in civil court.

The reason this is in federal court is because WBC is based in Kansas and the family is in Maryland as well as it being a $5,000,000 lawsuit. Federal court has jurisdiction. It is likely Maryland State law that was the basis for the lawsuit.

With one exception, states passing laws in these cases, I agree with your approach to this matter. It seems to me Rob that you are advocating that the States, may in some ways limit the exercise by citizens of the Bill of Rights within their borders. If free speech, freedom or worship and other such rights can in any manner be limited by the states, then it seems to me that those rights do not really exist at all as rights, except when on federal property. IMO that would also mean those that suggest the Second Amendment may be abridged by states or local communities are right.

If my right to exercise free political speech can be subjected to civil suits solely because it causes anyone emotional distress, then again those free speech rights do not exist at all. As, anyone can claim emotional distress and by thus causing a prohibitive financial burden on the person in expressing those speech rights, unless they are wealthy, in effect, it creates an annulment of that right.

It seems to me that when there are competing rights, each party must be accorded reasonable accommodations; that is, each must as far as it is possible be allowed unrestricted rights. Otherwise, once again those rights do not exist at all.

When we start down the road of placing unconstitutional limits on any of the Bill of Rights, then IMO those rights no longer exist, except as man through an ever changing standard permits those rights to exist in some limited form. Yet, I can find no words in the Bill of Rights allowing the Congress to in any manner pass any law to abridge those rights in the smallest way; and if that is so, then absent such a federal law or amendment, I do not see how the states or communities have any Constitutional basis for passing any such local laws, including allowing law suits for emotional distress.

As you suggested it can get messy at times, but our experiment in democracy has never been a tidy business and we should all be very, very concerned when anyone tries to make those rights less messy to enforce, as it will always result in a loss of rights, NEVER an addition to or strengthening of those rights.

The Bill of Rights to have any real value requires the majority of our citizens to be passionately dedicated to their defense, not allowing the slightest breach thereto, lest the breach becomes a floodgate.

It is easy to say there are limits, but two facts are very important to consider: (1) The Bill of Rights does not contain language allowing any such limits and it strictly prohibits Congress from ever changing that clear language by any laws, to impose any such limits. Only the people through the means specified in the Constitution may amend them! (2) Who is to say what those limits should be? Liberals? Conservatives? Probably the Supreme Court, right? The problem is, if the Court is predominately conservative or liberal, the majority in power will have different ideas and impose different limitations and those limits will be problematic in that, each limit will require further amplifications and create new limits and on and on it will go without end. With even the smallest limitation being imposed, how will everyday citizens know what those rights really are and be able to stand upon them against the overwhelming power of the State?

Wisely the Bill of Rights imposes no such limits, thus taking it out of the hands of political parties or ideologies or the whims of mere, fallible men. No, if any real harm results from their being exercised, the framers left it to the wisdom of the people in such cases to impose limits by the pressures of society placed upon the miscreants that abuse those rights.

I am sorry to disagree, but as has been suggested here, those rights are there to protect the most extreme and abrasive forms of speech, for the most objectionable people; with the only acceptable limitation being the idea of not being able to cry fire in a crowded theater and causing physical injuries or deaths, by a frivolous misapplication of those rights.

The second coming might be closer Neiman. I have agreed several times now. You stated it very well. Those soldiers died for the idiots freedom. Thats the shame.

I agree with Rob’s analysis. Now that being said I think that ‘church’ is abominable and disgusting.

Actually, depending on who the person is, and depending on what you say, you do indeed have the legal right to defame people. If the person is a public official, you are free to lie about them to your hearts content. I know this seems weird, but it’s true.

Even with private citizens, the right to lie is acceptable as long as it doesn’t cause the person some damage. The lie can be brutal, horrible, and downright evil, but if it doesn’t cause harm, the person has no recourse.

Freedom of speech was made to protect offensive and unpopular speech. This idea that people have a right to not be offended or angered has led to such stupid cases as this:

http://omg.yahoo.com/news/lindsay-lohan-suing-e-trade-for-milkaholic-parody/37130?nc