Could you sue the Christians that spread the May 21 theory for fear mongering?

I'm just wondering if you could sue them or not, out of curiosity. BdogTheGamer

No you can't, and shouldn't try, just brings more attention to them.

I dont think so.

Its your choice to listen to their message.

If you choose to be afraid then how you can sue them for simply providing their message.

Regardless of credibility they're not forcing you to read or believe that message.

The greek word Heresy means "choice" most religions would prefer you didn't have one.

[QUOTE="majoras_wrath"]

[QUOTE="thegerg"]

You would have to show that "fear mongering" is unlawful, prove that they actually took part in fear mongering, demonstrate what their fear mongering caused you to lose, and show that their actions caused you harm. In short: you can try, but good luck.

Ask yourself this: "Could I sue the Jews on GameSpot for fear mongering?" The answer would probably be the same.

thegerg

[QUOTE="thegerg"][QUOTE="majoras_wrath"] What. :?

majoras_wrath

[QUOTE="majoras_wrath"][QUOTE="thegerg"] Exactly, such questions are silly.MAILER_DAEMON

I don't think so.

[QUOTE="majoras_wrath"][QUOTE="MAILER_DAEMON"]I don't see how it was unclear; he just replaced Christians with Jews in the question. Which is a rather pointless question in the first place, if you ask me.

thegerg

You have to consider what your injury was. If you relied on the statement (and were a little closer in connection to the particular sect that spread this strange theory, rather than just someone online) and you had a physically manifested injury (loss of sleep, migraines, etc., then yeah... negligent infliction of emotional distress. This of course depends on the state you live in. Nothing else though. A lot of people talked about first amendment, etc., that would be fine if the question was "can the STATE/GOV'T sue...", individual people can violate the first amendment all they want, cause... we aren't restricted by it.

Oh... source - i'm a lawyer [not barred yet]. I just so happen to enjoy my ps3 :)

No, because fear mongering is not a legal cause of action. Also, even if you could sue, a court couldn't grant relief because it does not immediately incite violence and is therefore protected by the First Amendment, whether it's true or not.

Can you sue anyone for fearmongering?

Can you sue anyone for fearmongering?

sonicare

Nope first ammendment.

You have to consider what your injury was. If you relied on the statement (and were a little closer in connection to the particular sect that spread this strange theory, rather than just someone online) and you had a physically manifested injury (loss of sleep, migraines, etc., then yeah... negligent infliction of emotional distress. This of course depends on the state you live in. Nothing else though. A lot of people talked about first amendment, etc., that would be fine if the question was "can the STATE/GOV'T sue...", individual people can violate the first amendment all they want, cause... we aren't restricted by it.

tamabeast04

A) The conduct must be sufficiently outrageous, and legal precedent holds that much worse things do not qualify as negligent infliction of emotional distress. Practically speaking, there is no way negligent infliction would hold.

B) If you were really a lawyer, as I am, you would know that this is a First Amendment question, and here's why. If a plaintiff did sue over this, and a state or federal court granted relief, then the government would be sanctioning the speech and therefore infringing on the defendant's first amendment protection.

So, first of all, you can't sue for fear mongering because there is no cause of action for hate mongering. Second, the conduct is not sufficiently outrageous to warrant a finding of negkigent infliction. Third, even if somebody could somehow bring an action for irritating rumors that were spread, a court couldn't grant relief, because it would violate the First Amendment.

... this is why message boards don't work. YOU can sue for whatever, first amendment has nothing to do with YOU. It only restricts state action. But the post that I had earlier states the only correct answer (no offense)to the actually simple question

[QUOTE="tamabeast04"]

You have to consider what your injury was. If you relied on the statement (and were a little closer in connection to the particular sect that spread this strange theory, rather than just someone online) and you had a physically manifested injury (loss of sleep, migraines, etc., then yeah... negligent infliction of emotional distress. This of course depends on the state you live in. Nothing else though. A lot of people talked about first amendment, etc., that would be fine if the question was "can the STATE/GOV'T sue...", individual people can violate the first amendment all they want, cause... we aren't restricted by it.

Communistik

A) The conduct must be sufficiently outrageous, and legal precedent holds that much worse things do not qualify as negligent infliction of emotional distress. Practically speaking, there is no way negligent infliction would hold.

B) If you were really a lawyer, as I am, you would know that this is a First Amendment question, and here's why. If a plaintiff did sue over this, and a state or federal court granted relief, then the government would be sanctioning the speech and therefore infringing on the defendant's first amendment protection.

So, first of all, you can't sue for fear mongering because there is no cause of action for hate mongering. Second, the conduct is not sufficiently outrageous to warrant a finding of negkigent infliction. Third, even if somebody could somehow bring an action for irritating rumors that were spread, a court couldn't grant relief, because it would violate the First Amendment.

Outrageous-ness has nothing to do with NEGLIGENT infliction of emotional distress. You are talking about the intent. tort of IIED, which requires extreme and outrageous conduct. And you're state action discussion is attenuated at best, but I see where you are going. Honestly, the question was about the merit of a claim, not its eventual appeal.

... this is why message boards don't work. YOU can sue for whatever, first amendment has nothing to do with YOU. It only restricts state action. But the post that I had earlier states the only correct answer (no offense)to the actually simple question

tamabeast04

[QUOTE="Communistik"]

[QUOTE="tamabeast04"]

You have to consider what your injury was. If you relied on the statement (and were a little closer in connection to the particular sect that spread this strange theory, rather than just someone online) and you had a physically manifested injury (loss of sleep, migraines, etc., then yeah... negligent infliction of emotional distress. This of course depends on the state you live in. Nothing else though. A lot of people talked about first amendment, etc., that would be fine if the question was "can the STATE/GOV'T sue...", individual people can violate the first amendment all they want, cause... we aren't restricted by it.

tamabeast04

A) The conduct must be sufficiently outrageous, and legal precedent holds that much worse things do not qualify as negligent infliction of emotional distress. Practically speaking, there is no way negligent infliction would hold.

B) If you were really a lawyer, as I am, you would know that this is a First Amendment question, and here's why. If a plaintiff did sue over this, and a state or federal court granted relief, then the government would be sanctioning the speech and therefore infringing on the defendant's first amendment protection.

So, first of all, you can't sue for fear mongering because there is no cause of action for hate mongering. Second, the conduct is not sufficiently outrageous to warrant a finding of negkigent infliction. Third, even if somebody could somehow bring an action for irritating rumors that were spread, a court couldn't grant relief, because it would violate the First Amendment.

Outrageous-ness has nothing to do with NEGLIGENT infliction of emotional distress. You are talking about the intent. tort of IIED, which requires extreme and outrageous conduct. And you're state action discussion is attenuated at best, but I see where you are going. Honestly, the question was about the merit of a claim, not its eventual appeal.

Ok, you're right that the requirement of outrageousness is for intentional infliction. In practice though, the conduct will still have to be outrageous if you're going to satisfy the causation requirement for negligent infliction.

The other problem is that negligent infliction requires the plaintiff satisfy criteria to be considered a direct victim or a bystander. To show direct victim, you would have to show that the person spreading the May 21st rumors owed some duty to the plaintiff as a member of the public at large. As we all know from first year torts, a duty to all is a duty to none...for law enforcement and private citizens (unless you have a special relationship, which would not be the case here.)

For bystanders, all states follow either a physical zone of danger rule or a rule of foreseeability with respect to the plaintiff proximity to, or observation of, the direct victim. Neither of those would be satisfied here.

The only other action would be public nuisance, but that's clearly not satisfied. Even if it were, the plaintiff would have to show harm different in kind from everyone else, he couldn't.

My state action argument was assuming the claim even has merit, which it does not.

Didn't you hear? It's October now.

But really, I'm a Christian, and it's pretty much agreed among everyone I know and everyone they know and everyone they know that those people are basically blind followers; essentially crazy people.

honestly, you're wrong again (no offense). You are correct as to the first two criteria for NIED, but the third is with privity. Clergy connection will satisfy the privity. And outrageousness is NOT an element of NIED, whether in practice or not. It will not be considered by a jury, and if it is, you have clear error...

honestly, you're wrong again (no offense). You are correct as to the first two criteria for NIED, but the third is with privity. Clergy connection will satisfy the privity. And outrageousness is NOT an element of NIED, whether in practice or not. It will not be considered by a jury, and if it is, you have clear error...

tamabeast04

The four criteria for negligent infliction are:

-Negligence

-Causation of severe mental distress

-Proof of genuineness

-Proof that the plaintiff was a direct victim or a bystander who is entitled to recovery

Any privity would only be evidence that the plaintiff's claim is genuine, or evidence that he is a direct victim. There is no separate option for finding negligent infliction via privity. Any clergy connection, if it were relevant here (which it is not), would not create privity. It would only be evidence of a special relationship that would impose a duty on the pastor, and that duty would only extend to members of his congregation. It would not extend to any person outside the church who thinks he is just rambling and wants to sue him. Unless one of the above four criteria means the same thing as privity to you, privity is not an element of negligent infliction of emotional distress.

I'm very hesitant to call Harold Camping and his followers Christians. They have several false teachings. For one thing, nobody knows the day or hour when Jesus will return (Matthew 24:32-36). Camping also teaches that every church is apostate (that is, not following God). It's very dangerous territory when someone says something like that or they claim to be the only true church. The Church is composed of all Christians all over the world, not just one small group or a building.

[QUOTE="tamabeast04"]

honestly, you're wrong again (no offense). You are correct as to the first two criteria for NIED, but the third is with privity. Clergy connection will satisfy the privity. And outrageousness is NOT an element of NIED, whether in practice or not. It will not be considered by a jury, and if it is, you have clear error...

Communistik

The four criteria for negligent infliction are:

-Negligence

-Causation of severe mental distress

-Proof of genuineness

-Proof that the plaintiff was a direct victim or a bystander who is entitled to recovery

Any privity would only be evidence that the plaintiff's claim is genuine, or evidence that he is a direct victim. There is no separate option for finding negligent infliction via privity. Any clergy connection, if it were relevant here (which it is not), would not create privity. It would only be evidence of a special relationship that would impose a duty on the pastor, and that duty would only extend to members of his congregation. It would not extend to any person outside the church who thinks he is just rambling and wants to sue him. Unless one of the above four criteria means the same thing as privity to you, privity is not an element of negligent infliction of emotional distress.

Your state either has a different view on NIED, or you are a fan of wikipedia... your fourth factor is just 2 of the 3 potential causes for NIED, the third is a close relationship. And causation of severe mental distress is for intentional infliction of emotional distress. Before you try to prove me wrong, brush up on the actual subject... NIED requires actual physical manifestation of the distress, not severe mental distress...

Unfortunately, fear mongering is not illegal.

nope.

what a ridiculous question.

I'm very hesitant to call Harold Camping and his followers Christians. They have several false teachings. For one thing, nobody knows the day or hour when Jesus will return (Matthew 24:32-36). Camping also teaches that every church is apostate (that is, not following God). It's very dangerous territory when someone says something like that or they claim to be the only true church. The Church is composed of all Christians all over the world, not just one small group or a building.

MathMattS