Facts: Christopher Osinger harassed and intimidated his ex-girlfriend under 18 U.S.C. §§ 2261A (2) (A) and 2261(b) (5). He sent sexually explicit content of his ex-girlfriend to her family, friends, and coworkers without her permission, and tried to communicate with V.B in many occasions even after she told him to stop trying to contact her. Seeking to the demission of the charges, he stated that 18 U.S.C. § 2261A (2) (A) was unconstitutional because free speech was being prohibited and it is protected by the First Amendment. He challenges his conviction for stalking in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2261A and faces facial charges to 18 U.S.C. § 2261A as unconstitutionally vague as applied to his conduct. He maintains a sentence of 46 months imprisonment. …show more content…
§ 2261A (2) (A) in the case was unconstitutional because it prohibits free speech that is protected by the First Amendment of the Constitution. (2) Whether the statute was unconstitutionally vague under the definition of harassment or substantial emotional distress. Holding: (1) The panel held that because § 2261A forbids intimidating and harassing conduct, it is not objectively invalid under the First Amendment. The defendant’s argument that the statute’s failure to define substantial emotional distress or harass furnishes it unconstitutionally vague. Thus, Osinger should not be afforded First Amendment Protection. (2) These terms were found to be not complex and could be understood by individuals with common intelligence. Therefore, the statute is not facially invalid. Reasoning: (1) The defendant declared that the version of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2261(2) A is objectively unconstitutional due to its prohibition of freedom of speech protected by the First Amendment. He also argued that the indictment filed in this case shall be dismissed because it does not state an offense and that the emails he sent to V.B were not directed to her, so the emails shouldn’t be taken in the case as evidence. According to him, he solely sent the emails to her co-workers and there was also no evidence of
Interpretation of the Eighth Amendment-Rummel, Solem and The Venerable Case of Weems v. United States. Duke Law Journal, Vol. 1984:789. Retrieved from http://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2886&context=dlj&sei-redir=1&referer=http%3A%2F%2Fscholar.google.com%2Fscholar_url%3Fhl%3Den%26q%3Dhttp%3A%2F%2Fscholarship.law.duke.edu%2Fcgi%2Fviewcontent.cgi%253Farticle%253D2886%2526context%253Ddlj%26sa%3DX%26scisig%3DAAGBfm0U6qTJJcBT1EoWmQVHDXIojJgBHw%26oi%3Dscholarr#search=%22http%3A%2F%2Fscholarship.law.duke.edu%2Fcgi%2Fviewcontent.cgi%3Farticle%3D2886%26context%3Ddlj%22
1. The court stated that they did have power to hear this case: "Since the court has consistently exercised the power to construe and delineate claims arising under express powers, it must follow that the Court has authority to interpret claims with respect to powers alleged to derive from enumerated powers."
"The words of the first amendment are simple and majestic: 'Congress shall make no law abridging freedom of speech.' The proposed constitutional amendment would undermine that fundamental liberty."
III. Procedural History: Due to a complaint made by the County Attorney of Hennepin County, the defendant, J. M. Near was ordered to display reason why his newspaper should not be banned for production under the Minnesota statute or “gag law”. During this time he was also not allowed to publish, broadcast, or create new editions until a final verdict was given. Near refused to argue his reasoning based on the idea that the state statute was not only unconstitutional but also, the plaintiff did not have a sufficient amount of evidence which is required in order for one to take legal action. The District Court rejected to side with Near due to the absence of facts and decided to send the issue to the Minnesota Supreme Court for confirmation. The State Supreme Court decided to uphold the statute despite the fact that Near argued “the Act violated not only the state constitution and U.S constitution but also, the Fourteenth Amendment” (283 U.S 697, 705). After this, the case proceeded to trial and the District Court found that, “the defendants, through these publications, did engage in the business of regularly and customarily producing, publishing and circulating a malicious, scandalous and defamatory newspaper, and that “the said publication” under said name of The Saturday Press, or any other name, constitutes a public nuisance under the laws of the State” (283 U.S. 697, 706). J. M. Near appealed to the State Supreme Court once again, arguing that his rights under the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment were being viola...
Contentions of the Parties: The State Supreme Court acted on the grounds that Mr. Hendricks’ condition appeared to be substantial enough to satisfy the due process requirement that involuntary civil commitments must be predicted on a mental illness finding. Hendricks appealed and argued that his commitment violated his due process rights, as well as his protection against double jeopardy
The possibility that other measures will serve the State's interests should also be weighed. Landmark argued in the Supreme Court of Virginia that "before a state may punish expression, it must prove by `actual facts' the existence of a clear and present danger to the orderly administration of justice." 217 Va., at 706, 233 S. E. 2d, at 125. The court acknowledged that the record before it was devoid of such "actual facts," but went on to hold that such proof was not required when the legislature itself had made the requisite finding "that a clear and present danger to the orderly administration of justice would be created by divulgence of the confidential proceedings of the Commission." Id., at 708, 233 S. E. 2d, at 126. This legislative declaration coupled with the stipulated fact that Landmark published the disputed article was regarded by the court as sufficient to justify imposition of criminal
Without the right to speak freely one would not be able to debt, nor would one be able to receive full coverage on world issues. There would be no interesting newspapers, no free religion and no free thoughts. This amendment seems so simple but, the boundaries of which issues and incidents are covered are so complex and varied. What is legal and illegal?
The Court finds through the O’Brien test that symbolic speech is protected only if the speech does not undermine the interests the government institutions uphold. We observe a clear example of how the O’Brien test is applied in Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District and in what way this case can attest to the unconstitutionality of Section 3 in the Identification and Registration Act. In this case, the Court decided that “as long as speech does not disrupt the educational process, government has no authority to proscribe it” (262). This reasoning could be applied to Irene Ryan v. United States as well because the symbolic speech Ryan took part in had no effect on threatening the interest the government has established and the interests the law displays. Therefore, Ryan’s action is protected and Section 3 provides an unlawful “authority to proscribe it” due to the fact that her speech posed no threat to the government
Reasons/Analysis: Since certain materials have a high risk in being offensive, the Court decided that states
Mr. Keegstra was a high school teacher who was fired from his job because he taught his students that Jews attempt to destroy Christians and how they are responsible for chaos. If students were to argue his opinion, they would receive lower marks then those in favor. A parent read the notes on her child’s paper and complained to the school board. He was then charged under section 319 (2) of the criminal code for promoting hatred towards his students. At trial, Keegstra’s lawyer argued that they had violated his Freedom of expression but the trial judge disagreed because the charter rights provide equal protection among individuals. Since they believe he was promoting hatred among a group of people; the jury convicted that it was intentional promotion of hatred. Keegstra then appealed his conviction to the Supreme Court but his conviction was brought back.
Freedom of Speech is a fundamental right that makes America the “land of the free.” But this right is abused by many people, and Philip Malloy is one of those individuals. Philip Malloy’s First Amendment Rights regarding his Freedom of Speech were not violated because there was a rule that he was informed about multiple times, but he still disrespected it.
The first amendment of the Constitution declares, essentially, that no individual, institution, or any laws made by individuals or institutions may abridge a citizen's right to free speech.
Taylor, Bruce A. "Memorandum of Opinion In Support Of The Communications Decency Amendment." National Law Center for Children & Families. 29 June 1995, 1-7.
Reno, Attorney General of the United States, et al. v. American Civil Liberties Union et al. 000 U.S. 96-511 (1997) Argued March 19, 1997. Decided June 26, 1997
The offender’s rights and well-being is also greatly considered when determining a route of punishment. Not only does the constitution protect offenders from cruel punishments, double jeopardy, and unlawful searches;