> emotional injury

Emotional injury isn't a new concept in law. Such injury has been around probably since the dawn of legal systems. For example, you (broadly) cannot harass or slander people, even if it doesn't cause physical or financial harm.

I disagree with the term broadly. Slander and harassment really have very specific definitions. Social media mobs and the news are rarely, if ever, held to full (or any) consequences. When the news is punished for slander it's usually very specific things that they've misstated. They can dance around things and paint pictures all they want, as long as they don't directly claim something happened that didn't.

Specific law applies to journalists, under the US First Amendment which guarantees freedom of the press. The rules established by the US Supreme Court in NY Times v Sullivan (1964) apply different standards based on whether the subject is a public figure. For example, you can print outright lies about President Biden. You must be very careful regarding a non-public private citizen (not a celebrity, or example).

> Slander and harassment really have very specific definitions.

Yes, I know. I was in a hurry and didn't come up with something better. I'm just pointing out that emotional injuries are well-established. There are plenty more, such as emotional distress in damages.

> Social media mobs ... are rarely, if ever, held to full (or any) consequences.

I think that is, in part, because the legal system hasn't caught up with reality.

Both harassment and slander have very specific legal definitions and likely aren't as broadly applicable as you're thinking though. Slander, specifically, does often have a financial harm component to it as well, though it isn't required.

Agreed; I was just hurrying to provide a well-established example of injuries in the law that involve emotions.

Usually "mere words" are not enough to be considered an assault unless a direct present threat is made.

>What specifically is an 'emotional injury'?

I'm instantly reminded of an at least 3 year trauma time when my Ex cheated on me and added more insult to injury. Emotional injury is real. I felt a pain as if someone has beaten the crap out of me and it was present all day every day from a few seconds after waking up to falling asleep. I felt as if I was beaten up so bad that if it was physical damage I would've been put in hospital.

That is real emotional injury and should be punishable by law. And if I'd have an educated guess it's also why some men beat up their cheating ex-partners or the third party, commit murder, suicide etc.

And reading some text can make me infuriated but not injure. I can only be injured by text if I'm already in an emotionally vulnerable state, see the cheating ex example.

Being bullied or harrassed is a different topic.

> my Ex cheated on me and added more insult to injury... That is real emotional injury and should be punishable by law.

While I'm sorry that you had a bad experience, it is a phenomenally bad idea to make failed personal relationships into criminal offenses. This is like some nightmare straight out of 1700s puritanism.

> What specifically is an 'emotional injury'?

I think it’s also important to think about what it’s not. It’s not something that can happen to a company, so no one with deep pockets will be able to go after big tech. It’ll open up the potential for people to sue, but that’s just a matter of throwing a tiny amount of money around around if anyone is dumb enough to think they can win a lawsuit against a big tech company.

Interesting perspective and point.

Is there a potential risk there for companies with class action suits? Or will the arbitration clauses/class action waivers found in terms of services prevent that from happening?

>Any lawyers here have color on how such loose ambiguous language around subjective harms will (or currently) get handled by the courts?

not a lawyer, but have taken a number of law courses focused on civil law and worked on legal platforms. I suppose it would be handled the same way such concepts have been handled in tort cases for a long time in common law systems.

The law generally defers to experts with recognized training and experience in the relevant field. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daubert_standard

God. This place is toxic lately.

One hop to a kangaroo court, then?

How does a court, with a judge appointed and confirmed by elected representatives, a jury of independent citizens, utilizing expert testimony and long-established rules of procedure, equate with a kangaroo court?

For one thing, a law like this puts a staggering amount of power in the hands of whoever gets to define "emotional injury."

Emotional distress has been a concept in tort law for decades and the sky has yet to fall. It's generally measured as a combination of 'here's the awful thing that happened, imagine how you'd feel, jurors' and testimony from the victim and/or psychiatrist(s) assessing the impact of the emotional injury in terms of subsequent dysfunction.

Tort law is one thing. The US Code is another.

I can see this going the way of bitemark analysis.