US Lower court – Speech immunity rules:

 categorical approach for imposing tort liability on speech as opposed to engaging the Supreme
Court's general speech-tort balancing framework.
 “incitement test” as an evidentiary predicate to finding unreasonably dangerous speech
unprotected and therefore subject to tort liability.
 Suicide games did not create a foreseeable risk of suicide for children who played the game, in
part because the child's suicide was not foreseeable to his own mother
 Courts rejected tort liability even in cases in which it was undisputed that producers and theatre
owners in fact foresaw youth violence immediately following gang movies in the proximity of
the theatres that showed the films and nonetheless continued to show them, which led to
additional youth casualties.

New York Times v. Sullivan, the Court balanced free

speech rights against the values furthered by tort liability and denied
liability for untrue, defamatory political speech. 120 Yet, the Court has
allowed tort liability for publishing presumably true political memoirs,
depending on a number of policy considerations. 121 As explained in Part
IV, the Court generally balances a number of factors when considering tort
liability for speech, then constitutionalizes tort liability for speech by
raising the burden of proof necessary to establish a prima facie tort case to
reconcile tort liability with the First Amendment.
Some forms of speech are protected.
Supreme Court cases subsequent to New York Times v. Sullivan used an
interest-balancing approach to resolve the conflict between the First
Amendment interest in protecting speech and states' and individuals'
interest in tort liability.