Back to story
Perspective Shift

You read this story from where you sit.
Want to read it from somewhere else?

We'll re-present the same story as a thoughtful proponent of the tort-law limits frame would. Not to convince you. To let you actually meet the argument.

Choose a vantage
Retold from the other vantage
Steelman · slot A
The high bar exists for a reason
A defamation and tort defense lawyer would argue —
IIED is a narrow tort precisely because hurt feelings are universal and lawsuits over them would swallow ordinary speech. The doctrine demands conduct beyond all bounds of decency, and what we have here is unaltered footage of a competitive hockey game — a public event the family itself acknowledges is routinely livestreamed with commentary — showing a player's on-ice meltdown. The boy isn't named, his face is pixelated, and nothing on his jersey identifies him. Compare that to the cases where Illinois courts have actually sustained IIED claims: a newspaper photographing a mother's dead son after barring her from the room, or radio hosts mocking a child's medical deformity by name across Chicago. The gap is enormous, and collapsing it would turn every unkind repost into a federal case.

If this read like a fair rendering of the argument — even when you disagree — it's doing its job. Steelmen aren't aimed at persuading you; they're aimed at what the other side actually believes when they're thinking clearly.