General Discussion

redgreenandblue

(2,128 posts) Sun Sep 23, 2012, 06:26 AM Sep 2012

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

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?

28 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Out of curiosity: I wonder whether there is civil liability for stuff like "Innocence of Muslims" [View all] redgreenandblue Sep 2012 OP

Take a break. nt Skip Intro Sep 2012 #1

Would seem so to me. safeinOhio Sep 2012 #2

What this has to do with the OP's cockamamie example, IDK. WinkyDink Sep 2012 #14

Extremely doubtful. COLGATE4 Sep 2012 #3

The First Amendment applies to civil actions based on protected speech. onenote Sep 2012 #4

I wonder... redgreenandblue Sep 2012 #19

They were dismissed because of the First Amendment onenote Sep 2012 #24

The actors may have a case.... Jeff In Milwaukee Sep 2012 #5

Not likely to succeed on that theory in America. DirkGently Sep 2012 #6

Should be brush Sep 2012 #7

She's not one of the backers of the movie oberliner Sep 2012 #23

I don't know brush Sep 2012 #28

The odd thing is that, were it not for the violent riots, the existence of this JDPriestly Sep 2012 #27

The idea that the lame anti-Islam video is the cause of the violence in Islamic countries is absurd slackmaster Sep 2012 #8

Absurd? brush Sep 2012 #9

Weak response slackmaster Sep 2012 #10

Agreed brush Sep 2012 #11

If the provocateurs didn't have that video, I'm confident they would have found something else slackmaster Sep 2012 #12

But they're protesting in Australia, Indonesia, the UK, Germany... none of these are "backward" riderinthestorm Sep 2012 #18

Point conceded. The protesters are backward, not necessarily the countries. slackmaster Sep 2012 #22

"the use of its existence by provocateurs" cthulu2016 Sep 2012 #17

Huh? brush Sep 2012 #25

How about if we sue YOU for YOUR words? Oh, wait; you think you are EXEMPT from your own idea? WinkyDink Sep 2012 #13

Simple answer: Yes, but only on an individual level. Public figures are pretty much immune. HopeHoops Sep 2012 #15

I was thinking of the individual level. redgreenandblue Sep 2012 #20

You sort of have to mention a name to be liable. HopeHoops Sep 2012 #21

Yes, and I hope they get sued for wrognful death nadinbrzezinski Sep 2012 #16

It could be treestar Sep 2012 #26