Skip to main content

View Diary: Westboro Chickens Out Again (83 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  the plaintiffs there claimed intentional (2+ / 0-)

    infliction of emotional speech, and Phelps argued that this was political speech protected by the first amendment.  so that turned on. whether the issue was one of public import or whether it was just private nastiness.

    here, its inarguable that gun control and mass killings are public concerns, so its equally inarguable that the first amendment attaches and that this isn't simply a matter for tort law to resolve.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site