Source: https://www.criminallegalnews.org/cln-litigation/2016/PA/pln-v-agpa-pa-bio-def-mtd-and-iso-pi-motion-silencing-act-2015/
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 20:29:53+00:00

Document:
Free Speech, LLC v. City of Phila., 884 A.2d 966 (Pa. Commw. Ct.
Freedom from Religion Found., Inc. v. Saccone, 894 F. Supp. 2d 573 (M.D.
Goudy-Bachman v. Health & Human Servs., 764 F. Supp. 2d 684 (M.D. Pa.
if and when to give a court the opportunity to strike the law down.
regulation of speech, its overbreadth, and its authorization of prior restraints.
PLN Plaintiffs Have Standing to Bring Their Claims.
likelihood that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision.” Susan B.
the opening brief filed January 8, 2015 by the plaintiffs in the Abu-Jamal case.
Plaintiffs satisfy all three of the requirements for standing.
rights.’” Id. (quoting Steffel v. Thompson, 415 U.S. 452, 459 (1974)).
Thus, the Supreme Court has repeatedly found standing in preenforcement challenges to allegedly unconstitutional statutes. See, e.g., Susan B.
Goudy-Bachman v. Health & Human Servs., 764 F. Supp. 2d 684, 692 (M.D. Pa.
take significant and costly compliance measures or risk criminal prosecution.” Id.
other pre-enforcement cases discussed above to find similarly—are present here.
Silencing Act—even after learning of PLN Plaintiffs’ suit. See also Susan B.
what they could not do.”).
run and much of it requires a long-term commitment of resources. (See, e.g., Ver.
the implementation of the individual mandate.”).
submission by Abu-Jamal due to the threat of Silencing Act enforcement. (Ver.
Aichele, 757 F.3d at 365 n. 21 (citations omitted).
and redressability—need be addressed only briefly.
Freedom from Religion Found., Inc. v. Saccone, 894 F. Supp. 2d 573, 582 (M.D.
PLN Plaintiffs’ Claims Are Ripe.
conclusive judgment, and (3) that such a judgment would actually be useful.
governmental sanction or regulation of their activities protected by the statute.” Id.
‘predominantly legal’ and did not require additional factual development.” Id.
Silencing Act against PLN Plaintiffs, there is the requisite adversity of interests.
but to all those who want to engage in conduct that could be subject to the Act.
(DA Br. at 9-12.) Defendant Williams is incorrect for two reasons.
costs on candidates whose nomination papers were successfully challenged).
Area Sch. Dist., 801 F. Supp. 2d 312, 318 (M.D. Pa. 2011) (quoting Coleman v.
her office.’” Id. (quoting Coleman, 87 F.3d at 1499).
state’s Crimes Code, is aimed at halting the “continuing effect of . . . crime[s] on . .
Act is in no way “purely administrative,” N.N., 801 F. Supp. 2d at 318.
before its passage, leaving no doubt that he would use it if enacted. (Ver. Compl.
policy is to enforce the Act unless it is deemed unconstitutional in this litigation.
explained below, the Act is unconstitutional in at least four ways. See Miller v.
The Silencing Act is Unconstitutionally Vague.
Kane has not overcome any of them.
how people felt in the past, not predications about how they will feel in the future.
up falling with the Act’s scope. See Cramp v. Bd. of Public Instruction, 368 U.S.
mental anguish.” See 18 Pa. C.S. § 11.1304(d).
a criminal case or one convicted of a crime.” (Id. (quoting http://legal-dictionary.
counsel said just the opposite at the Committee hearing on the law. (Ver. Compl.
third party conduits to be able to communicate broadly with the outside world.
regulates conduct, and (2) is not content-based. She is incorrect as to both.
when applied to individual wearing “F— the Draft” jacket); Saxe v. State Coll.
Defendants, leaves no doubt about that. (Ver. Compl. at ¶¶ 21-44.) See Sorrell v.
countless ways in which the Act jeopardizes their freedom of speech. (Ver.
speech simply does not comport with reality.
Defendant Kane offers no legislative history to suggest that it was.
Br. at 21-25), but have not even attempted to satisfy.
The Silencing Act Is Unconstitutionally Overbroad.
Pennsylvania legislators, Defendant Williams, former Governor Corbett, and Mrs.
Faulkner appear to feel differently (see, e.g., Ver. Compl. at ¶¶ 29, 34-36, 44).
The Silencing Act Unconstitutionally Authorizes Prior Restraints.
statute’s scope. (AG Br. at 26-28.) She is wrong.
240 F.3d at 214-16 (invalidating overbroad school district harassment policy).
552 (1993), the key case on which Defendant Kane relies.
necessarily shown that irreparable harm would result absent an injunction”).
throughout this brief, she is incorrect.
dismiss and preliminarily enjoin the enforcement of 18 Pa. C.S. § 11.1304.
the Silencing Act. They found none.
which will send notification of the filing to all counsel of record.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.

 v.

 v. 
 § 11
 v. 
 v.

 § 11