Out of curiosity: I wonder whether there is civil liability for stuff like "Innocence of Muslims"

[redgreenandblue]

The 1st amendment ensures that speech can never be criminal. But can person A sue person B for damages resulting from the speech of person B?

Let's say there is a gathering of some kind of unpopular people (group A) taking place in a building in Dallas Texas. And a prankster (person B) decides, without the knowledge of group A, to set up a huge sign beside the entrance of the building that reads: "White heterosexual christian males have small penises and sleep with their cousins."

Now lets say as a result of that the building gets stormed by white heterosexual christian males and someone gets hurt.

Let's assume there are no trespassing charges or something similar against the prankster. While the sign itself was legal (and the actions of the people who stormed the building were clearly illegal), can the person who got hurt sue the prankster?

[Skip Intro]

1. Take a break. nt

[safeinOhio]

2. Would seem so to me.

The Seventh Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads:

In suits at Common Law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

[WinkyDink]

14. What this has to do with the OP's cockamamie example, IDK.

[COLGATE4]

3. Extremely doubtful.

[onenote]

4. The First Amendment applies to civil actions based on protected speech.

Couple of examples: The SCOTUS decision in favor of Hustler and against Jerry Falwell who had brought a civil action for intentional infliction of emotional distress against the magazine. (Similarly, the Court ruled that protected speech can't be the subject of a civil action for intentional infliction of emotional distress in Snyder v. Phelps). Libel actions also have to overcome constitutional barriers.

So it still boils down to whether the speech in question is deemed protected by the Constitution.

[redgreenandblue]

19. I wonder...

...whether the cases were dismissed based on the 1st amendment or because "intentional infliction of emotional distress" is subjective and hard to prove. One would have to A) prove that emotional distress happened (and/or was a result that could have been anticipated) and B) prove that the infliction of such was the intent.

I think in the case of Snyder v. Phelps there would be a problem with B), since the church can always argue that their intent was to "save souls" or something similar to dismiss the accusation that they did what they did for the sole purpose of causing pain.

[onenote]

24. They were dismissed because of the First Amendment

From the opinion in Hustler v. Falwell:

"At the heart of the First Amendment is the recognition of the fundamental importance of the free flow of ideas and opinions on matters of public interest and concern. "The freedom to speak one's mind is not only an aspect of individual liberty -- and thus a good unto itself -- but also is essential to the common quest for truth and the vitality of society as a whole." [CITATION OMITTED].We have therefore been particularly vigilant to ensure that individual expressions of ideas remain free from governmentally imposed sanctions. The First Amendment recognizes no such thing as a "false" idea. As Justice Holmes wrote, "When men have realized that time has upset many fighting faiths, they may come to believe even more than they believe the very foundations of their own conduct that the ultimate good desired is better reached by free trade in ideas -- that the best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market . . . ." [CITATION OMITTED]
....Generally speaking the law does not regard the intent to inflict emotional distress as one which should receive much solicitude, and it is quite understandable that most if not all jurisdictions have chosen to make it civilly culpable where the conduct in question is sufficiently "outrageous." But in the world of debate about public affairs, many things done with motives that are less than admirable are protected by the First Amendment."....
"Debate on public issues will not be uninhibited if the speaker must run the risk that it will be proved in court that he spoke out of hatred; even if he did speak out of hatred, utterances honestly believed contribute to the free interchange of ideas and the ascertainment of truth."[CITATION OMITTED]. Thus while such a bad motive may be deemed controlling for purposes of tort liability in other areas of the law, we think the First Amendment prohibits such a result in the area of public debate about public figures."


In Phelps,the court further explained that where the speech relates to a matter of public, rather than purely private, concern, the First Amendment restrains the imposition of civil liability.

In short, the controlling factor is not whether the case is criminal or civil or whether the elements of the tort were "subjective"... its whether the speech at issue is protected or not.

Finally, turning back to your original example, the "prankster" couldn't be held liable, even if the poster was deemed purely private speech because it would not be possible to prove that the attack on Group A was foreseeable to a prankster who didn't know Group A was in the building.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

5. The actors may have a case....

I may have misunderstood the details, but it sounds as through the actors "performed" one script, and then audio was dubbed in to change what they were saying. The actors might be able to argue that the producers' passing off this movie as something the actors were willfully participating in might (might) constitute defamation.

[DirkGently]

6. Not likely to succeed on that theory in America.

Insulting someone won't typically fly as the "cause" of a violent response. A sign reading, "Everyone in this building is mass-murdering rapist; please kill them all via the attached flamethrower" would be a different matter.

But did anything like that happen with the film in question? It does appear to have been a deliberate attempt to incite violence, and was accompanied by other acts, including lying about who made it and perhaps coordinating in its promotion and distribution to create the maximum possible chaos. There may have been other acts along the way that went beyond just the film itself and into the realm of overtly inciting violence that could be criminal or tortious. Some of those acts probably weren't committed by the filmmakers though.

The filmmaker falsely claimed to be an Israeli American, backed by Jewish Americans, presumably to inflame Muslim / Jewish tensions and anti-American sentiment as well. But who brought the film to the attention of Muslim clerics? Translated it into Arabic? Who kicked off the outrage precisely on Sept. 11? Who suggested the riots would be good cover for a coordinated extremist attack using military-grade weaponry?

It's great we've had this very theoretical debate here about the Heckler's Veto and free speech and the backward views of much of the Muslim world, but this film was also a deliberate ploy played out with great care and attention to detail,and it worked, to horrendous effect, to hurt a lot of people.

[brush]

7. Should be

I understand one of the backers of the movie, an extreme birther, now plans to run NYC subway billboards that call Muslims savages (link below).

http://www.opposingviews.com/i/politics/foreign-policy/war-terror/birther-pamela-geller-posts-anti-muslim-ads-san-francisco-and

This woman is dangerous and I don't see how a judge can rule in favor of the ads. If these ads run look for even more violent protests in the Middle East and possibly here. Talk about yelling "Fire" in a crowded theater. Of course the subway ads and the film were/are all timed to happen just before the election to make sure the President doesn't win. I wonder who is behind the funding for the film and the ads? It's all so coordinated like a previous poster stated, the translation of the film to Arabic just before 9/11, the alerting of the Arab media to its presence on YouTube, the seemingly spontaneous protests breaking out on 9/11, the not so spontaneous attack on the Benghazi US Consulate with heavy weapons, the spread to many other countries in the Middle East. This is monstrous and it all doesn't just happen without a whole lot of money. We need a heavy duty investigative reporter on this right away (Hersh, Taibbi, Palast, somebody). I'm betting the money trail takes a hard right turn.

[oberliner]

23. She's not one of the backers of the movie

I think you are getting her mixed up with someone else.

[brush]

28. I don't know

That's not what I heard. And she is the one behind the NYC subway ads that a judge has just ruled can be run. The ads call Muslims "savages." Look it up.

[JDPriestly]

27. The odd thing is that, were it not for the violent riots, the existence of this

insulting film would probably cause Americans to be more sympathetic to Muslims than unsympathetic. That's the way Americans are.

[slackmaster]

8. The idea that the lame anti-Islam video is the cause of the violence in Islamic countries is absurd

Most of the people involved in violent protests haven't even seen it. They were incited to violence by provocateurs in their own countries, who told them that a blasphemous video (as if there was only one) exists.

[brush]

9. Absurd?

Maybe most haven't seen it but the fact that it exists (and the timing of it's translation to Arabic just before 9/11 and Arab media outlets being alerted), and the use of its existence by provocateurs to incite violence disproves your argument. And that's not hard to see at all. Get a clue.

[slackmaster]

10. Weak response

The street culture of backward countries like Pakistan includes factions that are always looking for reasons to riot. The real reasons for their uncivilized behavior are rooted in their own ignorance and intolerance.

ETA attacking the GOVERNMENT of the USA makes no logical sense. The rioters don't understand that our government had nothing to do with the production or distribution of the video. They don't comprehend that our laws do not permit prohibitions against blasphemy or apostasy.

They're being provoked by people who want to influence the election, I agree. Radical Islamic fundamentalist groups want Mitt Romney to win the election. That is becoming clearer by the day.

[brush]

11. Agreed

I don't disagree with that, but I'm not naive enough to believe that the coordinated nature of this whole incident is just a coincidence. This is from a previous post of mine: ". . . the translation of the film to Arabic just before 9/11, the alerting of the Arab media to its presence on YouTube, the seemingly spontaneous protests breaking out on 9/11, the not so spontaneous attack on the Benghazi US Consulate with heavy weapons, the spread to many other countries in the Middle East . . .", come on even if factions in some countries are always looking for reasons to riot, it's obvious to me that powerful forces exist that know that as well and they provided a reason for these factions to riot. And the timing of it on 9/11 and just before our election doesn't make your just a little bit suspicious? And what about the funding of it?

[slackmaster]

12. If the provocateurs didn't have that video, I'm confident they would have found something else

[riderinthestorm]

18. But they're protesting in Australia, Indonesia, the UK, Germany... none of these are "backward"

They aren't living in ignorance or intolerance and they have access to enough unbiased news sources that they know the US government, nor most of its people, has nothing to do with the film.

They're being provoked but I'm not so sure its as crystal clear as you'd like to paint it. There's a Muslim DUer, recently returned from almost 10 years in the UAE who has a different take on this.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021348526#post27

[slackmaster]

22. Point conceded. The protesters are backward, not necessarily the countries.

I agree with JCMach1 - It's the clerics and a twisted version of the religion.

[cthulu2016]

17. "the use of its existence by provocateurs"

Exactly. It didn't *cause* anything.

[brush]

25. Huh?

Of course it did. If there are so many other films like this online which have been online all the time, why weren't they used? It's so obvious that it was a co-ordinated act, the making of the film, the posting online, the translation to Arabic just before 911, the alerting of Arab media, the protests beginning on 911 in Eygpt, the violent protest/attack with heavy weapons in Libya and then other countries. The posting of the film online it's translation to Arabic just before 911 is no coincidence.

[WinkyDink]

13. How about if we sue YOU for YOUR words? Oh, wait; you think you are EXEMPT from your own idea?

[HopeHoops]

15. Simple answer: Yes, but only on an individual level. Public figures are pretty much immune.

Generalizations aren't restricted by any law I'm aware of at the federal or state level.

But if I accuse another private citizen of something then I'm guilty of defamation. If I claim that all Republicans are money-grubbing antiquated asswipes (which they are), that's not illegal. The example you gave is the latter. I'm not Christian, don't sleep with my cousins, and I don't have a small penis, but I am white and heterosexual. I'm not offended.

As for the legal action, think about the Westboro Bastard Clan. They hold out signs like that all the time. They video tape everything. If someone intervenes, they sue them using the video tape as evidence. They're all lawyers. That's how they make their money. It isn't illegal, but it certainly stinks of a law that needs to forbid such shit. And if they didn't sleep with their cousins, they wouldn't still have a so-called "church".

Oh, and since rMoney is a public figure - YO! rMoney! Fuck you and everyone who looks like you and if you don't like it, I'll be happy to moon you in my front yard. Call me and I'll give you the address.

That's legal.

[redgreenandblue]

20. I was thinking of the individual level.

In essence, what I was thinking was not whether an insult is illegal but whether insulting someone with the intent of provoking a response against a third person can lead to the third person having a legal claim to be compensated for damages.

[HopeHoops]

21. You sort of have to mention a name to be liable.

[nadinbrzezinski]

16. Yes, and I hope they get sued for wrognful death

People get sued for speech issues regularly... in civil court. The best known is slander. But yes, there is such a thing in civil court.

Now in this case, standing might prove tricky.

[treestar]

26. It could be

It would have to be presented as an act and not just speech and there would have to be the right proof of intent or foreseeability.