1. Members of the Westboro Baptist Church claim that the First Amendment protects them from IIED lawsuits since they are expressing a political opinion by picketing at soldier funerals. The pickets take place on public property and in compliance with local picketing laws. If the plaintiffs win the case, the church is unlikely to have the money to satisfy the judgment and may seek bankruptcy. Do you believe that this conduct is extreme and outrageous enough to constitute a tort? Why or why not?

2. In 1983 Hustler magazine (owned by publisher Larry Flynt) ran a print advertisement patterned after a Campari liquor ad campaign. The real ad campaign featured celebrities "talking about their first time" in a question-and-answer interview format, slowly revealing that the celebrities were speaking about their first time drinking Campari. The Hustler advertisement featured fundamentalist preacher Jerry Falwell, who was running a campaign against pornography at the time, and insinuated that Falwell had lost his virginity to his mother. Falwell sued Flynt and the magazine, and a jury awarded Falwell $150,000 in damages. The Supreme Court overturned the verdict on appeal on grounds of the First Amendment, holding that as a public figure, Falwell had to endure the advertisement.Hustler Magazine v. Falwell, 485 U.S. 46 (1988). Do you believe that celebrities and public figures should have a harder time winning IIED lawsuits? Why or why not?

3. Do you believe that an "identifying characteristic" should be protected by the tort of misappropriation, or do you believe that society has gone too far in recognizing property rights? A First Amendment exception exists for comedians who engage in satire and comedy (think of Tina Fey's impersonation of Sarah Palin during the 2008 presidential campaign, for example). Does it make sense to you that comedians like Fey and John Stewart can make money through misappropriation, but other businesses cannot