November 18 roundup


  • Anybody besides me notice that all of the people quoted in the Washington Post article about caffinated alcoholic drinks were under 21?

    While I disagree with the 21 drinking age and believe that the FDA should have more important issues than this, I still find this ironic.

  • The professor makes an excellent point. Courts have long recognized that speech which meets the elements of intentional infliction of emotional distress is not protected speech. Snyder v. Phelps should be easily affirmed, but I’m sure we’ll have long winded policy arguments with some dissenting Justices.

  • To claify, the trial court’s judgment should have been easily affirmed. I think the 4th Circuit actually reversed, so the correct ruling from the Supreme Court would be to reverse. There are very few fact patterns which even come close to meeting the elements of intentional infliction of emotional distress, and this is certainly a case where a jury could find them to exist.