The United States has an abiding responsibility to protect the freedom of speech, even for speech that is disliked by the common people or considered to be offensive. The United States has also traditionally allowed people who are badly affected by such speech to sue and recover damages from those who hurt them.Sometimes, however, people hurt each other with the words they say. One type of harm caused by speech is called ‘defamation,’ which is the act of saying false things in order to make people have a bad opinion of someone or something (Webster 1).
Another type of harm is the ‘intentional infliction of emotional distress.’ Someone can be held responsible for intentional infliction of emotional distress if their actions are – Intentional,…show more content… Three questions were presented to the Supreme Court: (1) Does Hustler Magazine, Inc. v.
Falwell (1988) –“United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that theFirst and Fourteenth Amendments prohibit public figures from recovering damages for the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress, if the emotional distress was caused by a caricature, parody, or satire of the public figure that a reasonable person would not have interpreted as factual” – apply to a private individual versus another private individual concerning a personal issue? (2) Does the belief in the First Amendment's freedom of speech overpower the First Amendment's freedom of religion and peaceful assembly? (3) Does an individual attending a family member's funeral establish a captive audience who is entitled to request protection from unwelcomed communication? (Supreme Court 1).
Because Snyder sought penal damages, he was required to prove his case by solid and convincing evidence. Additionally, Snyder was required to prove actual malice, or, ill will.
Snyder carried his load on both issues. Snyder argued that the First Amendment does not give us
Edmonds
