|
Without knowing more about the case, it's hard to say. It's certainly no joke that he's running at a disadvantage to his rights because of what's he's saying and doing, and that's certainly the legal angle that you'd go after it. Essentially the argument is that this is "jury nullification." He has the right to protest and should be allowed to exercise it, but the jury was so repulsed by that result (i.e. it's ok to say "Your son died because American loves fags" at his funeral) that they ignored the law and found what they believed to be right instead of what the law says is right.
My response was mostly towards the general notions of what the first amendment does or does not mean. I have NO idea if those torts were adequately satisfied in this case. If they were, I don't think he's got much ground to stand on. If they were sketchy and the decision looks like one made based on a gut reaction to his beliefs instead of any real impact to the plaintiff, he has a good chance of pulling it off.
|