One such example is a child's right not to recite the Pledge of Allegiance. The First Amendment protects not only freedom of speech, but also the freedom not to speak. Statutes that tie criminal culpability to conduct that involves subjective judgments without providing statutory definitions, narrow context, or settled legal meanings have been struck down for vagueness. Under due process principles, laws that regulate persons or entities must give fair notice of conduct that is forbidden or required. As with overbreadth, vagueness is impermissible for fear that constitutionally protected speech will be "chilled." In addition, the "void for vagueness" doctrine is grounded in the due process requirement of notice. Vagueness A statute is "void for vagueness" if it fails to provide a person of ordinary intelligence with fair notice of what is prohibited. In order to prevent a "chilling effect" on protected speech (i.e., frightening people into not speaking for fear of prosecution), overbroad statutes may be challenged as "facially invalid" even by those who are validly regulated on behalf of those who are not. The mere fact that some impermissible applications of a statute can be conceived of is not sufficient to render a statute overbroad. A statute's overbreadth must be substantial both in an absolute sense and relative to the statute's plainly legitimate reach. Overbreadth A law that burdens substantially more speech than is necessary to protect a compelling governmental interest is "overbroad" and therefore void. Public disclosure of the petition, and, thereby, the names of the individuals who signed the petition does not violate the First Amendment because such disclosure is substantially related to the important interest of preserving the integrity of the electoral process. The act of signing a petition constitutes expressive conduct. Example: laws against public nudity are constitutional because public order must be kept, which is unrelated to speech. Example: Laws against flag desecration are unconstitutional because they suppress an expressive type of speech to show disapproval. Governmental regulation of expressive conduct is upheld if: i) The regulation is within the government's power to enact (e.g., through a local government's police power) ii) The regulation furthers an important governmental interest iii) The governmental interest is unrelated to the suppression of ideas and iv) The burden on speech is no greater than necessary. Expressive conduct (or symbolic speech) may be protected as speech, but it is subject to a lesser degree of protection. Protected speech can include not only written, oral, and visual communication, but also activities such as picketing and leafleting.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |