The First Amendment Right to Religious Darkness

The Catholic church in this premises liability case “assert[ed] it had no legal duty to abandon the religious practice involving the use of darkness because it is protected by the First Amendment”; alas, the court saw no occasion to reach this issue.

From Valadez v. St. Joseph the Worker Catholic Church, 2021 WL 6128567, decided Sept. 24, 2021 by Judge Audra Mori (L.A. Superior Court),

Plaintiff, Flavia Valadez … filed this action against Defendant, St. Joseph The Worker Catholic Church … alleging causes of action for negligence and premises liability. The complaint alleges Defendant caused Plaintiff to fall due to unsafe conditions in and around an unlit staircase at Defendant's property. Defendant now moves for summary judgment…. "The owner of premises is under a duty to exercise ordinary care in the management of such premises in order to avoid exposing persons to an unreasonable risk of harm. A failure to fulfill this duty is negligence." …

Defendant asserts the incident occurred on April 5, 2017, during a Catholic faith tradition known as the Service of the Light (the "Service") at Defendant's church. In keeping with the tradition, the church was in darkness intentionally at the time of the incident. Prior to the incident, Plaintiff attended the Service since 1997. When Plaintiff entered the church, it was already dark, and when Plaintiff was unable to find a seat in the lower level of the church, Plaintiff went upstairs to find a seat in the balcony, which she had been to five or six times previously. When Plaintiff reached the balcony, it was still dark, as there was only one overhead light shining on the altar. The balcony has four levels or landings on which seats are available. Plaintiff proceeded to a seat, and as she took a step thinking she had reached the last landing, she fell because there was actually one more landing Plaintiff had missed. Defendant avers the only dangerous condition Plaintiff claims caused her fall is the darkness in the church, which prevented her from seeing the landing….

The court rejected the Church's defense that the danger was "open and obvious": Under California law, the court concluded, "if it is foreseeable that a condition may cause injury despite its obvious nature, a duty to correct the danger may exist, and a breach of that duty may form the basis for liability if it proximately causes the injury." But the court concluded that the Church was protected by the "primary assumption of risk" doctrine:

Where, "by virtue of the nature of the activity and the parties' relationship to the activity, the defendant owes no legal duty to protect the plaintiff from the particular risk of harm that caused the injury," the assumption of risk "operate[s] as a complete bar to the plaintiffs recovery." {[F]or example in the context of sports, … [p]laintiffs assume risks inherent in a sport by participating, and defendants generally owe no duty to protect plaintiffs from such risks but owe a duty not to increase the risks beyond those inherent in the sport.}

The doctrine of assumption of risk is not limited to sports. It applies to activities involving an inherent risk of injury to voluntary participants where the risk cannot be eliminated without altering the fundamental nature of the activity. (Beninati v. Black Rock City, LLC (Cal. App. 2009) [affirming application of assumption of risk doctrine where Plaintiff was burned by remnants of Burning Man effigy while at Burning Man Festival].) …

Plaintiff does not dispute attending the Service since 1997 or otherwise being aware darkness was involved in the Service. The church was dark from the time Plaintiff entered the church and went to the balcony where the incident occurred. Nonetheless, Plaintiff chose to participate in the Service, and thus, chose to engage in an activity in which darkness was an inherent part. The risk to persons who voluntarily decide to take part in the Service is self-evident, as participants who attend will be inside the church while it is dark. The risk of falling inside the church while walking or moving around inside while it is dark is an obvious and inherent risk to participating in the Service….

[T]he evidence shows that Plaintiff knowingly chose to walk up to the balcony in the darkness and encounter the subject landings, of which Plaintiff was aware. The darkness was inherent and necessary to the event, and the risk of falling on the balcony while there in the darkness was obvious. It was within the contemplation of the activity.

Furthermore, although Plaintiff contends Defendant increased the risk the darkness posed, Plaintiff does not identify any conduct by Defendant other than the darkness that caused Plaintiff's injuries. Plaintiff argues the darkness together with the faulty stairs caused Plaintiff to fall. However, Plaintiff merely provides the balcony riser where Plaintiff fell presented a height differential of 7-1/4 inches, the subject landing ranged between 33-5/8 and 85 inches in length, and the area features varying tread lengths, but Plaintiff does not submit any admissible evidence explaining why these factors made the balcony dangerous or increased the risk of the darkness. Similarly, Plaintiff does not explain how the other factors Plaintiff identifies increased the inherent risk of the Service, especially whereas here, Plaintiff was aware of the balcony landings. There is no evidence that any action or inaction by Defendant increased the risk of harm to Plaintiff.

Therefore, the doctrine of primary assumption of the risk applies to the activity engaged in by Plaintiff, and accordingly, Defendant owed no duty to Plaintiff to prevent Plaintiff's injuries. The court needs not address the remaining issues….

Comments

[Commenter_XY]

This decision sounds like a victory for common sense, Professor Volokh.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

This case was more about the rare, temporary circumstance in which common sense lost to superstition.

[JohannesDinkle]

I'm Orthodox Christian, and we do much the same thing during Pasca. In our church the lights are turned down very low, but not actually off.

[Longtobefree]

People have been known to stand quietly in a church service where the lighting is subdued.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Choose reason. Every time.

Choose reason. Especially over sacred ignorance, dogmatic intolerance, or childish gullibility. Most especially if you are older than 12 or so. By then, childhood indoctrination fades as an excuse for ignorance, backwardness, bigotry. By adulthood -- this includes ostensible adulthood -- it is no excuse, not even in the most desolate backwater one might encounter.

Choose reason. Every time. And education, progress, tolerance, freedom, modernity, science, and inclusiveness. Avoid superstition, ignorance, backwardness, dogma, bigotry, insularity, authoritarianism, and pining for good old days that never existed. Not 75 years ago. Not 175 years ago. Not 2,000 years ago. Not ever.

Choose reason. Be an adult. Or, at least, please try.

Otherwise, you could wind up stumbling about in darkness . . . or become an obsolete, virus-flouting, antisocial, vanquished, disaffected, bigoted clinger.

Thank you.

[Jerry B.]

Let's go Kirkland.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

How fitting, Jerry B. railing against his betters at a blog that does nothing but rail against its betters.

Carry on, clingers. So far as your betters permit . . . as clingers learned a year ago at the Capitol.

(But not Ashli Babbitt, which evokes a scene from Wise Guys:

Mr. Castelo (warning henchmen not to kill disloyal employees Dickstein and Valentini during torture session): 'But do we really hurt them by killing them?'

Henchman: 'It's a good start.'

Mr. Castelo: 'But have we taught them anything?')

[Sigivald]

"Clingers".

Again, refers to Democrats who voted for the "wrong" person in a primary.

The bitter, clinging person here is the one posing as a man of the cloth, methinks - because he can't help but do things like this, constantly, no matter the subject or how irrelevant his ejaculations are.

(This won't heal your pain, Kirkland.

It's probably making it worse, in fact, CS Lewis style.

There is no God, but you're somehow still managing to put yourself in Hell, sua sponte.)

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Get an education. Former Pres. Obama's eloquent statement was aimed precisely at people to whom I refer - including, in particular, Trump supporters.

Your denigration of the Congregation Of Exalted Reason -- precipitated, perhaps, by your preference for superstition -- does not influence the legal standard by which reasoned beliefs are entitled to just as much privilege as childish superstition-based claims in the context of religious privilege.

[ReaderY]

I’m let the Rev. Kirkland have it more in the future. The Rev. conflates “reason” and “science.” Reason is what people think up by deduction from things they start out believing. Science is what they observe empirically.

So the statement “we hold these truths to be self-evident…” is a rejection of science. Nothing is self-evident in science. And there is no scientific evidence whatsover for these supposedly self-evident truths. The statement actually admits this, self-evidence is an anti-science concept.

All of Rev. Kirkland’s statements that his beliefs are supported by science are bullshit. There’s no scientific reason to object to caste systems, slavery, rape, you name it. Lots of species have them. Rape is a perfectly rational scientific choice for male reproduction. Slavery is perfectly rational from a scientific point of view. And so on. Science is completely amoral. It only describes what is, not what should be. Its explanations are mechanistic, not moral.

All of these beliefs the Rev thinks “rational” have no more to do with science than the ones he thinks “superstition.” And in characterizing certain beliefs as self-evident truths and others as superstition, people like the Rev. are simply projecting their own psyche onto the world and calling it reason.

Indeed, the Rev. has for many years used science essentially for advertising purposes, hoping that if he repeats the word science often enough while espousing his beliefs, people will come to associate his beliefs with science, in much the way car makers hope that people will come to associate their cars with scantily clad women if the images are shown together often enough.

Science simply doesn’t provide guidance about moral issues. And “reason” here is simply another word for what we deeply believe and feel. The Declaration of Independence essentially says that. In doing so, it is being honest about the limits of evidence.

Indeed, to say that what we deeply believe and feel has anything to do with the nature of the world is in many ways an essentially religious act. Sometimes it does. Sometimes we get ourselves into situations when it appears it doesn’t, and then learning can be very painful.

Bit “science” simply doesn’t provide the guide to the good life that the Rev. claims it does. It deals in terms of what works. Slave empires and caste systems work in the sense of surviving for thousands of years. Any reason not to do them is not a scientific one. Science can help illuminate how to get somewhere, how to do something. But it doesn’t provide guidance on where to go, what to do. The Rev. is looking at science for religious fuidance, as if it were a kind of god. It’s a false one for that purpose.

[Sigivald]

If only he could grasp any of that, yes?

(To rephrase what you said, because this is also my personal hobbyhorse and I gotta do something with that philosophy degree -

Science tells us what will [or may] happen if we do X, Y, or Z. If done with any rigor at all, it's pretty good at that. That's what it's for, broadly.

It is necessarily entirely silent as to what outcomes we should prefer or how we should weight the options themselves, either practically or morally.

Science may tell us, to take an au currant example, "these human actions will cause sea levels to rise and temperatures to go up some".

Science cannot tell us how much we should care about that, or what price, if any, we should pay to try and stop it or ameliorate it.

[Biologists sometime try to handwave and pretend species diversity is a self-evident good, but when they do that, they're being lazy or have fooled themselves; it's a good within their operating framework, as all "good" is, and not a Truth About Nature. {I agree with them that it's a long-term practical good, but they rarely formulate it that cleanly.}

Nature has no moral compass or valuations. Not a single one, anywhere.]

He might be a "scientist" in the sense of "follower of scientism", but ...)

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

This is what I wrote: Choose reason. Every time. And education, progress, tolerance, freedom, modernity, science, and inclusiveness. Avoid superstition, ignorance, backwardness, dogma, bigotry, insularity, authoritarianism, and pining for good old days that never existed.

I used "science" once, in a list. It is difficult to square your attempted criticism with that point. If you wish to defend superstition (religion) -- or bigotry, backwardness, insularity, dogma, ignorance, or authoritarianism against the superiority of reason, inclusiveness, science, modernity, progress, education, and freedom -- you need to try to keep your gloves up if you wish to be competitive. Otherwise, why not just admit defeat in the culture war and try to improve?

[Rossami]

"We hold these truths to be self-evident" is not so much a rejection of science as a statement that those social questions are entirely outside the realm of science. Science can only answer 'what is'. Morality, ethics and religion are the proper avenues to answer 'what should be'.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Morality, ethics and religion are the proper avenues to answer 'what should be'.

Religion plays the part of the crazy, drunk uncle in that scene.

[Cheerio]

"Choose reason. Especially over sacred ignorance, dogmatic intolerance, or childish gullibility. Most especially if you are older than 12 or so. By then, childhood indoctrination fades as an excuse for ignorance, backwardness, bigotry. By adulthood -- this includes ostensible adulthood -- it is no excuse, not even in the most desolate backwater one might encounter."

As a person of faith (which I gather is what you generally mean by "sacred ignorance," "superstition" and the like...), I'll point out a few things that honestly might help your side:

- Many people of faith are actually quite left leaning politically, and could well be your *allies* in many areas if you'd show them a bit of tolerance. (As a conservative myself, this probably wouldn't apply to me; but OTOH, most people like me are less committed to our political views than we are to our religious views, so in any case the prospects for persuasion are higher without the gratuitous vilification...)

- Your posts tend to use long strings of highly abstract terms, for both what you regard as negative traits as well as positive ones. Perhaps more concrete elaboration to make your case (rather than conclusory assertions) would be more persuasive, at least partially. As an analogy, when we "superstitious" folks make bald sanctimonious assertions about "right and wrong," we generally don't convince folks who don't already agree with us...

- Even if you're essentially correct about religion being bad, 12 years old seems far too young to assign the level of culpability you assert. In other contexts, progressives are very empathetic of what it's like to grow up immersed in a "bad" situation. If religion is indeed as bad as you believe it to be, then perhaps those subjected to it in their formative years deserve more compassion...

All the best.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

What would be a better threshold for when childhood indoctrination fades as a legitimizing point?

Thank you.

(People are entitled to believe as they wish; that entitlement should be respected and defended strenuously.

Increasingly, however, religion in America has come to be associated with various forms of bigotry; with social conservatism; with Republican politics; with requests for special privilege; with the flouting of a virus and pandemic; and with rejection of science and reason.

This diminishes the positive aspects of religion (it provides comfort to some; it may incline good works among some). To be charitable, I would accept an assertion that the volume of good precipitated by religion may approximate the volume of bad precipitated by organized religion. And I write that even after observing the role of religion at this blog and in current conservatism.

Thank you again.)

[Purple Martin]

Yes, childhood indoctrination is strong. Was born and raised in a near-fundamentalist Lutheran (not those wimpyMissouri Synod apostates—the true Lutheran Churches of the Reformation!), recall first real doubts coming up during Catechism classes at 14. Stayed with the church anyway (partly because of music); during college joined an independent Charismatic Evangelical church (and really threw myself into it because of Pastor’s counseling that if I opened myself to acting as if I really believed, true faith and belief would come).

Did lots of Bible study, led youth groups and choirs...just never could force myself to really believe in that for which I could detect no evidence. Studied other religions but never found anything about them any more convincing.

So, wasn't disillusioned, didn't go through any crisis, just realized I couldn't bring myself to pretend to believe in the supernatural...and there was no particular reason I should.

[Cheerio]

"To be charitable, I would accept an assertion that the volume of good precipitated by religion may approximate the volume of bad precipitated by organized religion."

Personally I'd go a bit further, but I greatly appreciate the move toward nuance.

"What would be a better threshold for when childhood indoctrination fades as a legitimizing point?"

I'm honestly not sure...and perhaps I'm not the right person to ask, since I still hold views that you'd regard as problematic.

[Krychek_2]

Well, the Bible does say that men love darkness rather than light.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

And John Entwistle said it might be a trick of the light.

[ReaderY]

It think it was a very reasonable approach for the courts here to adopt an existing state-law soctrine to churches rather than resorting to saying the First Amendment overrides state law.

And participating in the darkened church service involved in this case is in many ways analogous to going skiing or skydiving. Rather than making skiiing and skydiving illegal, the state has instead exempted them from liability, saying that if one voluntarily engages in an activity with inherent risks, one assumes those risks.

This seems a reasonable approach to risky church services.

[Ridgeway]

Sort of. I think they are saying that you assume the commonly-known or otherwise obvious risks.

Here, everyone should know that climbing stairs in the dark is dangerous. Had the church made it even more dangerous, by for example, leaving a bunch of marbles on the stairs, that would change the analysis, because that risk had not been assumed.

[BadLib]

Although if you attend a Pastafarian Church you probably are assuming the risk that there will be wet noodles on the stairs so be careful.

[John F. Carr]

I think plaintiff was descending stairs, which is more dangerous than climbing them. Descending mountains is also more dangerous than climbing them.

[Ridgeway]

Mr. Picky would point out that one can climb up or down.

[apedad]

I wonder how much (if any) public safety laws should apply.

Theaters are darkened but they have to have additional safety features, e.g. little lights on the steps, illuminated Exit signs, wide corridors, etc.

Why wouldn't this apply to a church?

[Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf]

Yes, let's do the same for mountain climbing or other assumed risks.

[Purple Martin]

No, let's not do the same for mountain climbing or other assumed risks.

Let's instead consider treating equally, such arenas incorporating design of routes intended to safely and conveniently enable people to reach a designated point from which they may observe or participate in the event or attraction.

That could easily include facilities in which darkness is a necessary component of the event, such as a planetarium, movie theater or, when applicable, church auditorium.

[ReaderY]

There’s a difference. Total darkness isn’t inherent to watching a movie in anything like the way that snow and ice are inherent to skiing, falling out of planes is inherent to skydiving, people punching you is inherent to boxing, fast-moving balls are inherent to baseball, a burning man effigy is inherent to the Burning Man festival, etc. You just can’t have baseball without fast-moving balls and the risk of getting hit by one, or a Burning Man festival without an actual burning man effigy and the risk of getting burnt. But you can have movie theatres without complete darkness.

The court accepted the church’s position that a period of total darkness is inherent to the nature of a Service of the Light in a way similar to the way flying baseballs are inherent to baseball and a burning man effigy is inherent to Butning Man. This is what makes the situation different from a movie theatre.

[Purple Martin]

Watch MLB? Been to a game lately? Notice how the protective netting has been extended far down the foul lines, way past what used to be the requirement? And it wasn't that long ago that dugouts had no barrier in front—because flying baseballs are inherent to baseball.

In both cases, the mandatory minimum level of protection was increased because it was recognized the exiting level was inadequate and options between absolute protection and no protection were available. As there were to the church. (Like requiring all participants be in their seats before the period of full darkness?)

[ReaderY]

But a baseball player who gets hit by a baseball couldn’t sue, just as a boxer who got punched couldn’t. Participants in a religious service are players, not spectators. They are on the field, not in the stands. Netting can protect spectators from the players. But it can’t protect players from themselves. Flying baseballs may not be inherent to watching a baseball game. But they are inherent to playing in one.

Just as it isn’t really baseball if there aren’t actual flying baseballs, the church’s position, which the court accepted, is that it isn’t really a Service of the Light if there isn’t actual darkness. Just as being around flying baseballs is inherent to being in a baseball game - spectators can watch one on TV after all - being in actual darkness is inherent in being in a Service of the Light.

[Purple Martin]

Walking in actual darkness is not inherent in being in a participant in a Service of the Light (not to mention climbing or descending an unknown number of unevenly-spaced steps). Plaintiff was injured while proceeding to her seat, and not yet a participant.

Other safety protections were available, such as requiring all participants be in their seats before the period of full darkness. Just like a similar, uncontested, fire safety measure requiring participants to arrive before the church reaches maximum allowable occupancy.

[David Nieporent]

Also, the laws apedad refers to are about fire safety, not tripping over one's own two feet safety. If she had been hurt because she was unable to see her way out during a fire evacuation, that might have been relevant.

[Holden C]

David Nieporent sadistical piece of shit who supports online crimes to harm people just because they involve "speech" in an artificial sense. Mentally ill piece of shit.

[David Nieporent]

You mean "who supports online things-that-aren't-crimes-to-sane-people-but-that-Holden-wishes-were-because-he's-an-authoritarian-loon," right?

And by "supports" you mean "thinks that they are constitutionally protected just because they involve speech, and speech is constitutionally protected," right?

[Kenneth Almquist]

That makes sense to me. If a fire had broken out in the church, the church might be liable if the priest didn't immediately turn on the lights to allow people to exit safely. But in this case, when the plaintiff arrived at the church and discovered that the service had already started, the plaintiff could have safely turned around and gone home.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Hot take (which is informed by work on slip/trip and falls).

Tort law is a dumb system for this kind of thing and should be replaced by a state no-fault accident insurance program similar to worker’s compensation programs. I believe New Zealand works this way.

[Commenter_XY]

LTG...How does that work? You get injured and file a claim? Like you do with a car insurance company or homeowners insurance?

[rsteinmetz]

It would seem in government health care system it wouldn't matter how you were injured you would receive care and compensation for lost wages. Of course I'm not sure that would include damages for pain and suffering.

[LawTalkingGuy]

That's the other thing. You wouldn't need to get into litigation over a broken leg that resulted in tens of thousands of dollars in bills due to an ambulance ride if there were a single payer government system.

[Longtobefree]

Too true. Because if had forgotten your internal passport (vaccine certificate) you would be left on the side of the road to die.

[LawTalkingGuy]

So with worker's compensation, people injured at work file a claim with the state agency who administers the insurance program, and they just focus on what the injuries are and how they should be compensated. Employers pay into the program like any other type of insurance or they are self-insured and pay-outs by the agency are chargeable to employer.

So you'd have a state agency simply administering the claims like an insurance company. Premiums could be collected in the same manner as FICA taxes or perhaps it could be, again like, comp, an opt-in program for business owners. (One difficulty here is that everyone can potentially be responsible for premises liability type suits, so limiting it to commercial or public landowners creates some inequities)

Now this sounds like too much state intervention, but so is tort law . It just involves the judicial branch rather than the executive branch. And in tort law, you're focusing on who is at fault in addition to what the injuries are. If you eliminate fault, you don't waste your time with experts and depositions and discovery and litigation over fault and liability. Some of which can get very bizarre: like is a puddle open and obvious as a matter of law based on the contrast with it against the floor. Or how exactly should a business go about removing ice from its parking lot?

You'd also bring some standardization to benefits instead of getting the wild disparities you do in tort law. With some "deserving" people not getting a lot (either through settlement or trial) or some "undeserving" people getting windfalls.

[Commenter_XY]

LTG....I had not considered this perspective before = Now this sounds like too much state intervention, but so is tort law . It just involves the judicial branch rather than the executive branch.

[GKHoffman]

The plaintiff trial bar is a major contributor to one of the two political parties. Do you really think those lawyers will sit idly by while the politicians they supported so lavishly do away with a significant source of the lawyers' income? That's why much talk, little action.

[Purple Martin]

Beninati v. Black Rock City, LLC (Cal. App. 2009) [affirming application of assumption of risk doctrine where Plaintiff was burned by remnants of Burning Man effigy while at Burning Man Festival].

OK, I'm saving that one. And I assume Mr. Beninati's new nickname is Burning Man. (Please don't buzzkill by looking it up and telling me Beninati is female.)

[lucia_l]

The balcony has four levels or landings on which seats are available. Plaintiff proceeded to a seat, and as she took a step thinking she had reached the last landing, she fell because there was actually one more landing Plaintiff had missed.

My reaction when I read this was "Plaintiff is an idiot". She's walking in the dark and can't see but for some reason "thinks" it's the last landing and acts on that "thought". I read this to my husband and his reaction was also "Plaintiff is an idiot".

While it might be interesting to learn whether the 1st amendment gives protections, I'm glad that wasn't required for the church's defense.

[Holden C]

Eugene Volokh's first speech absolutism is a danger to the American society. He actively fights for the rights to cyberharassers, cyberstalkers, pervs, trolls, sadists, online criminals to harm people using "online" means. The guy is a sadistic POS.

[Holden C]

Volokh's interpretation of the 1A is sadistic, irresponsible, and a danger to society.

Under Eugene Volokh’s asinine interpretation of the First Amendment, there would be NO such thing as cyberstalking or cyber-harassment! These crimes would simply not exist in his world. Because these actions are performed with words, Eugene would have the 1A apply to anything that involves words (or by extension, pixels). No course of conduct that involves typing words on a screen would be subject to any civil or criminal liability regardless of content, form, or intention. This mean in Eugene’s warped world, revenge porn, doxing, public disclosure of private fact, privacy violations, even swatting would be perfectly legal, and even encouraged!

Ludicrously, he argues that these malicious acts are actually “valuable” because they provide value to “at least some people.” That’s a BS argument, because anyone can argue that say doxing material provides value to “someone” – yeah, the doxers and the criminals doing the harassment of course! A person’s credit card can be posted and it would provide value to someone, the thieves. A person’s revenge porn pictures can be posted and it would be obviously valuable to countless shady people on the internet. Eugene’s 1A internet speech test is: as long as the information posted is “of value” to someone, that content doesn’t qualify as harassment! This insanely warped logic is beyond asinine that I wonder how Eugene can say this with a straight face. There is no discussion at all from him on the rights of the victims and their constitutional right to be free from malicious harassment (4th Amendment). Eugene Volokh is borderline sadist who just wants to see people’s lives get wrecked and he takes enjoyment in seeing victims suffer.

No civilized society would just let victims take the brunt of harassment while online criminals can get away by hiding behind a warped definition of the First Amendment. If the constitution says “Congress shall make no law” then maybe the 1A needs a new interpretation in the age of the internet! Because the current approach is leading to very bad social results and instability when people can just say whatever they want online with no liability. Volokh is insane.

[ReaderY]

As I understand it, your basic problem with Professor Volokh is basically the same as the beef Groucho Marx had with the standards of a club that would step to accepting him as a member. But Groucho Marx was funny.

Yes, you richly and thoroughly illustrate the nastiness of tbe sort of vitriollic drivel Professor Volokh’s position requires putting up with. And you expertly illustrate the full downside not only of his tolerance in not kicking your sorry ass off this blog, but of a legal system that doesn’t let him sue your pants off for harassing him.

Yes, putting up with people like you is a big downside to his position.

We get it.

[santamonica811]

In re the intersection of religion and assumption of risk; as usual, "The Simpsons" are a good place to start.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cE0gsrCzbnU