This preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.
Unformatted text preview: 4. As Chief Justice Rehnquist states in the reading, the public expression of ideas may not be prohibited merely because the ideas are themselves offensive to some of their hearers. So basically, just because someone finds something offensive doesnt mean that they deserve to receive damages because they are offended by what was said. No matter what is said, someone somewhere will find any kind of statement offensive in some way or another. 5. I wouldnt have supported the award for monetary damages to Falwell. I understand that he is a public figure and has rights, but since there was no malicious intent I dont see a reason for him to sue and deserve damages. At worst the magazine might deserve a reprimand, but since Falwell is technically not an private person, he needs to probe an intent of malice to have any hope of receiving any kind of damages....
View Full Document
This note was uploaded on 04/07/2008 for the course POS 2041h taught by Professor Knuckey during the Spring '08 term at University of Central Florida.
- Spring '08