I. Incitement of imminent violence
The first issue is what constitutional argument could be made against Tax’s conviction under the Sedition Statute. Under the US constitution First Amendment, laws that limit freedom of speech are unconstitutional. However, certain types of unprotected speeches that advocate violence, fighting words, hostile audience speech, obscene speech and defamatory speeches can be regulated. Fighting words is a speech that is more than annoying or offensive and causes a genuine likelihood of imminent violence by hostile audience. The speech must advocate illegal conduct, not just an abstract. The law that proscribe the conduct must not be vague or overbroad.
Here, the Sedition Statute is facially overbroad because it failed to distinguished imminent lawbreaking from abstract speech. However, the statute has been narrowly construed to apply only to advocacy …show more content…
Fighting words
The second issue is whether Ant-Tax can made any constitutional argument against its conviction under the Abusive Words Statute. The First Amendment doesn’t protect fighting words. Fighting words are punishable if they are likely to incite an ordinary citizen to take immediate physical retaliation. The speech must be more than annoying or offensive. There must be a genuine likelihood of imminent violence by a hostile audience. If the law proscribing the conduct is vague or overbroad then it is invalid. The law is unconstitutional if made viewpoint discrimination.
Here, the Abusive Words Statute punishes any abusive word or term. The statute is overbroad because it doesn’t distinguishes between fighting words and offending words. During the TV debate, Anti-Tax called Tax a dishonest imbecile. Although this speech might be considered as abusive word under Abusive Word Statute, the statue is invalid because it overbroad. Even though fighting words are not protected under the First amendment, Anti Tax’s words are offensive and such words are protected by the
The first issue is what constitutional argument could be made against Tax’s conviction under the Sedition Statute. Under the US constitution First Amendment, laws that limit freedom of speech are unconstitutional. However, certain types of unprotected speeches that advocate violence, fighting words, hostile audience speech, obscene speech and defamatory speeches can be regulated. Fighting words is a speech that is more than annoying or offensive and causes a genuine likelihood of imminent violence by hostile audience. The speech must advocate illegal conduct, not just an abstract. The law that proscribe the conduct must not be vague or overbroad.
Here, the Sedition Statute is facially overbroad because it failed to distinguished imminent lawbreaking from abstract speech. However, the statute has been narrowly construed to apply only to advocacy …show more content…
Fighting words
The second issue is whether Ant-Tax can made any constitutional argument against its conviction under the Abusive Words Statute. The First Amendment doesn’t protect fighting words. Fighting words are punishable if they are likely to incite an ordinary citizen to take immediate physical retaliation. The speech must be more than annoying or offensive. There must be a genuine likelihood of imminent violence by a hostile audience. If the law proscribing the conduct is vague or overbroad then it is invalid. The law is unconstitutional if made viewpoint discrimination.
Here, the Abusive Words Statute punishes any abusive word or term. The statute is overbroad because it doesn’t distinguishes between fighting words and offending words. During the TV debate, Anti-Tax called Tax a dishonest imbecile. Although this speech might be considered as abusive word under Abusive Word Statute, the statue is invalid because it overbroad. Even though fighting words are not protected under the First amendment, Anti Tax’s words are offensive and such words are protected by the