BEING SYMPATHETIC IS NOT ENOUGH: ABC reports that the family of Democratic National Committee staffer Seth Rich, who was killed in 2016, has filed a lawsuit against Fox News and others, citing in their complaint “Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress” (among other tort claims).

Now, you’d have to be a pretty cold-blooded monster to not feel sorry for any family who loses a son to violence. And playing amateur psychologist for a moment, it’s equally plausible that in an unsolved murder, the grieving parents would seek to hold someone responsible for something.

In light of the Supreme Court’s Snyder v. Phelps ruling, though, I don’t see how this case has much change to get out of the starting gate as a matter of law. In that case, a family who lost a son in combat were mortified at the Westboro Baptist Church holding odious and offensive protests at the funeral, including holding signs that read “Thank God for dead soldiers” and “Fag troops.” Pretty ugly stuff. I’d be offended too.

That said, the Supremes got it right:

“Given that Westboro’s speech was at a public place on a matter of public concern, that speech is entitled to “special protection” under the First Amendment. Such speech cannot be restricted simply because it is upsetting or arouses contempt. “If there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that the government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable.”

As sympathetic and truly victimized as the family is, allowing this kind of tort claim to apply to news reports opens the floodgates for every snowflake on the left or puritanical prude on the right to sue media for merely “offensive” speech, even if it is incorrect.

*Disclosure: I was on the team of media lawyers who filed an amici brief in the Supreme Court urging the rejection of such claims.*