On Mon, 07 Nov 2005 05:50:03 GMT, m II wrote:

Tracy Fort, drunkard, wrote:

..more drunken garbage..:


It's time I considered mailing copies of all your idiotic postings to
your family via the regular mail service, you drunk.

If you keep posting these idiotic forgeries it will happen sooner than
you think. Your neighbours should be interested too.


Leave me alone, you idiot.



Btw, when you decide to send me snail mail I do hope you realize that
you will be breaking the law.


ANNOYING / OFFENSIVE / HARASSING SPEECH, PART 1 OF 3

Generally, free speech protects speech even when it's
annoying or offensive, and even when it's intended to annoy
or offend. Thus, if someone posts a newsgroup article
calling you names, just to tease you or get back at you, he's
largely immune from punishment.

There are a few possible exceptions:

1. ONE-TO-ONE COMMUNICATIONS: The government can
probably restrict people from sending one-to-one
communications -- for instance, direct e-mail -- to
people who've already said that they don't want to
hear from them. If I send you physical mail that
you dislike, you can essentially order me to take
you off my mailing list. If I keep sending things
to you, I can be punished.

This sort of order is a speech restriction, but the Court has
held that it's constitutional (in a case called Rowan v. Post
Office Department), because it doesn't interfere with my
ability to talk to others. Presumably Congress could enact a
similar law for e-mail.

Note, though, that this almost certainly applies only when I
*can* take you (and only you) off my mailing list. If I post
annoying messages to a newsgroup or a discussion list, and
you want to stop getting them, you can't order me to stop
posting them. Such an order would interfere with my ability
to talk to others, not just to you. (Of course if you own or
moderate the mailing list, you can order me to stop posting
annoying messages, under threat of banishment from the list.)

2. INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS: In
many states, one can sue a speaker for speech that
intentionally inflicts emotional distress. The test
is generally that the speech must be "outrageous,"
and must cause "severe" distress.

This sort of tort claim is extremely troublesome from a free
speech perspective. Free speech generally protects even
outrageous speech, even when it causes severe distress, and
even if people think it's of no redeeming social value.

In fact, the Court has made clear that *public figures* can't
bring intentional infliction of emotional distress claims
based on speech unless the speech is otherwise unprotected
(e.g., an intentional falsehood or a threat or some such).
The rule for private figures is not clear, but there's at
least a strong potential free speech defense even to those
claims.