Overbreadth/vagueness/pr

Front 1

Gooding v Wilson

Back 1

Anti-war demonstration, police attempted to move appelle away from door and scuffle ensued. Appellee told officer "you son of a bitch, etc." Convicted of using opprobrius words and abusive language in violation of statute. Statute was a direct restraint and was also overbroad and vague. To fix statute: (1) indictment (2) jury instructions (3) GA SC. Statute has a chilling effect of 1st amend rights.

Front 2

Distinction Between Overbreadth and Vagueness

Back 2

Overbreadth sweeps too broadly; similar to overinclusive in Eq Pro
Vagueness must guess the meaning of the law; notice and DP problems here

Front 3

Osbrorne v Ohio

Back 3

Statute was written overbroad. Ct held it was saved by state's narrow interpretation. D must have known this type of speech would be condemned (here D was afforded "fair warning" bc D wouldn't have been surprised to learn that his possession of child porn constituted a crime). SC lets the state get by w/ interpreting statute narrowly after the fact

Front 4

Broadrick v. Oklahoma

Back 4

Ct adopted a limitation on overbreadth doctrine. State law restricted political activities of civil servants, made to prohibit civil servants from soliciting funds but punished people who displayed bumper stickers. Standing issue: people are permitted to challenge a statute not b/c their own rights of free expression are violated, but bc others not before the ct may refrain from constitutionally protected speech/expression. Constitutional rights are personal and you have to be able to claim them. The overbreadth of a statute must not be real, but substantial as well, judged in relation to the statute's plainly legitimate sweep.

Front 5

For Overbreadth Ask

Back 5

Is statute direct/indirect?
Is it overbroad?
Is it substantially overbroad?

Front 6

Vagueness is really a _____ problem and has to do with ______

Back 6

Vagueness is really a Due Process problem and has to do with notice.
Vagueness can lead to overbreadth and threaten 1st amend.

Front 7

Due Process Problem for Vagueness

Back 7

Due process problem: the law is void on its face if it is so vague that persons "of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning and differ as to its application"

Front 8

Vagueness must be...

Back 8

Substantial

Front 9

3 types of prior restraint

Back 9

Licensing-the ground upon which a permit may be denied must be set forth specifically and narrowly in ordinance.
Censoring
Injunction-order by a trial judge; a gag order is a type of injunction

Front 10

Lovell v Griffin

Back 10

JW convicted of distributing literature without a permit. City ordinance prohibited distribution of any literature at any time or any place w/o permit. The statute is invalid on its face b/c its broad sweep places a prior restraint and strikes at very foundation of the freedom of the press. B/c statute was invalid, it was not necessary for appellant to seek a permit under it. Woman never applied, but if she had she would've been able to challenge statute on two grounds: (1) invalid on face, and (2) its application.

Front 11

Standardless Licensing

Back 11

When you have a licensing scheme that says you need a license to participate in a certain activity, you have to have fairly explicit standards as to when that license will be granted. If you don't have this, you'll be sued for unfettered discretion in the licensing authority (authority can give license to anyone he pleases). Person who is delegated this authority must have a list of standards. Person must be fair in applying standards to everyone.

Front 12

Near v Minnesota

Back 12

Minn law authorized the "abatement" as a public nuisance of any "malicious, scandalous, and defamatory newspaper, or other periodical." State cannot restrict the publication of those materials in a newspaper without violating the 1st amendment guarantee of freedom of the press. The primary aim of the 1st amend was to prevent the pre-publication restraint. Could sue publication in a libel action, but this option was destroyed later in NY times. 2 types of prior restraint: (1) the statute itself -"good motives and justifiable ends" how do you determine this; and (2) injunction that the judge issue -he perpetually (forever) enjoined the paper- this is a violation of free speech.

Front 13

Doctrine of Prior Restraint is Not Absolute

Back 13

Prior restraint was the aim of the 1st amend therefore prior restraint is Unconstitutional
Exceptions:
(1) Troop movements (seen in Pentagon papers)
(2) Obscenity (not protected)
(3) Incitement to violence

Front 14

Collateral Bar Rule

Back 14

Injunctions must be obeyed until they are set aside; persons subject to an injunctive order issued by act w/ jurisdiction are expected to obey that decree until it is modified or reversed, even if they have proper grounds to object to the order.

Front 15

NY Times Co v. US; US v Washington Post Co

Back 15

1971
NY times and Wash Post published excerpts from top secrety Defense Dept study of Vietnam war. Pentagon Papers. Government filed suit seeking to enjoin further publication claiming they interfere w/ national security. Ct ruled (plurality 6-3) that the 1st amend protect the press from governmental interference. Executive department could not put a hush on press w/o acting in conjunction with Congress. 2 Elements of PR: (1) any system of PR of expression comes bearing a heavy presumption against its C validity; (2) the govt carries a heavy burden of showing justification for PR. (J.White-direct, immediate, and irreparable harm=standard).

Front 16

NY times v US Standard

Back 16

direct, immediate, irreparable harm
Also, all PR come with heavy presumption against C validity and government has high standard