Source: https://www.justice.gov/usam/criminal-resource-manual-1105-first-amendment-problems-son-sam-laws
Timestamp: 2017-11-20 17:26:14
Document Index: 81423439

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 2119', '§ 2261', '§ 2261', '§ 2262', '§2261', '§ 1831', '§ 1831', '§ 1831', '§ 1831', '§ 1831', '§ 1832', '§ 1832', '§ 1832', '§ 1832', '§ 1832', 'arty\n1134', '§ 1832', '§ 1832', '§ 3681']

1105. The First Amendment Problems of "Son Of Sam" Laws | USAM | Department of Justice
1101. Discussion of the Offense of Hostage Taking
1102. Hostage Taking—Gravamen of the Offense
1103. Jurisdictional Requirements--18 U.S.C. Sec. 1203(b)
1104. Summary of Special Forfeiture Statute
1105. The First Amendment Problems of "Son Of Sam" Laws
1106. Approval Considerations for Murder-for-Hire Indictments
1107. Murder-for-Hire—The Offense
1108. Indictment Form—Use of Interstate Commerce Facilities in the Commission of Murder-for-Hire
1109. Sample Jury Instruction for Use of Interstate Commerce Facilities in the Commission of Murder-for-Hire
1110. Carjacking Statute
1111. Elements of Carjacking
1112. Constitutionality of the Carjacking Statute
1113. Enactment of the Carjacking Statute and Congressional Power
1114. Double Jeopardy Challenge when 18 U.S.C. §§ 2119 and 924(c) Are Charged
1115. Sample Indictments
1117. Restrictions on the Possession of Firearms by Individuals Convicted of a Misdemeanor Crime of Domestic Violence
1118. Prosecutions Under 18 U.S.C. § 2261(a)(1)
1119. Prosecutions Under 18 U.S.C. § 2261(a)(1)
1120. Prosecutions Under 18 U.S.C. § 2262
1121. Penalties Under 18 U.S.C. §2261 And 2262
1122. Introduction to the Economic Espionage Act
1123. Letter from Attorney General to Senator Hatch Regarding Prior Approval Requirement for Economic Espionage Prosecutions
1124. Elements of the Offense Under 18 U.S.C. § 1831
1125. 18 U.S.C. § 1831 Element One—The Defendant Stole or, Without Authorization of the Owner, Obtained, Destroyed, or Conveyed Information
1126. 18 U.S.C. § 1831 Element Two—The Defendant Knew the Information Was Proprietary
1127. 18 U.S.C. § 1831 Element Three—The Information Was a Trade Secret
1128. 18 U.S.C. § 1831 Element Four—The Defendant Acted With the Intent to Benefit a Foreign Government, Foreign Instrumentality, or Foreign Agent
1129. Elements of the Offense Under 18 U.S.C. § 1832
1130. 18 U.S.C. § 1832 Element One—The Defendant Stole, or Without Authorization of the Owner, Obtained, Destroyed, or Conveyed Information
1131. 18 U.S.C. § 1832 Element Two—The Defendant Knew the Information Was Proprietary
1132. 18 U.S.C. § 1832 Element Three—The Information Was a Trade Secret
1133. 18 U.S.C. § 1832 Element Four—The Defendant Acted With the Intent to Economically Benefit a Third Party
1134. 18 U.S.C. § 1832 Element Five—Intent to injure the owner of the trade secret
1135. 18 U.S.C. § 1832 Element Six—Interstate or Foreign Commerce
1136. Defenses
1137. Criminal Forfeiture
1138. Civil Proceedings
1139. Confidentiality
1140. Extraterritoriality
U.S. Attorneys » Resources » U.S. Attorneys' Manual » Criminal Resource Manual » CRM 1000-1499 » Criminal Resource Manual 1101-1199
In 1991, the Supreme Court held unanimously (8-0, Justice Thomas did not participate) that New York's "Son of Sam" law was inconsistent with the First Amendment. Simon and Schuster, Inc. v. Members of New York State Crime Victims Board, 502 U.S. 105 (1991). The Court recognized "a compelling interest in compensating victims from the fruits of the crime, but little if any interest in limiting such compensation to the proceeds of the wrongdoer's speech about the crime," Id. 502 U.S. at 120-21. The Court ruled that New York's "Son of Sam" law was inconsistent with the First Amendment because it was "overinclusive" in that it "reaches a wide range of literature that does not enable a criminal to profit from his crime while a victim remains uncompensated." 502 U.S. at 121-22.
In a concurring opinion, Justice Blackmun pointed out, without analysis, that New York's "Son of Sam" law was also "underinclusive." 502 U.S. at 123-24. Its reach was limited to those assets of the criminal derived from the criminal's story about the crime. The statute did not extend to using any of a criminal's other assets for compensating crime victims.
On either rationale, the "Son of Sam" law was inconsistent with the First Amendment because it was not narrowly tailored to advance the State's interest in compensating victims. The Court's opinion concluded that the New York law was inconsistent with the First Amendment because it ". . . singled out speech on a particular subject for a financial burden that it places on no other speech and no other income. The State's interest in compensating victims from the fruits of crime is a compelling one, but the Son of Sam law is not narrowly tailored to accomplish that objective." 502 U.S. at 123.
Although the holding in Simon & Schuster was explicitly limited to New York's "Son of Sam" law, the decision appears to leave little doubt, if any, about the unconstitutionality of 18 U.S.C. §§ 3681 and 3682 and similar state "Son of Sam" laws that single out the proceeds of speech concerning a crime committed by the speaker for victim compensation without also targeting the other assets of the criminal for that purpose. In light of Simon & Schuster, some courts have relied on restitution orders and fines where convicted defendants appeared likely to receive proceeds from the sale of their stories about their crimes. See United States v. Jackson, 978 F.2d 903, 915 (5th Cir. 1992), cert. denied, 508 U.S. 945, 113 S.Ct. 2429 (1993), and cert. denied, 509 U.S. 930, 113 S.Ct. 3055 (1993) (under Simon & Schuster, district court cannot limit a restitution order solely to the income the defendants earn on speech associated with their criminal activities); United States v. Branch, 91 F.3d 699 (5th Cir. 1996) (same); United States v. Seale, 20 F.3d 1279, 1285 n.7 (3d Cir. 1994) (dicta that Simon and Schuster does not prohibit fine that includes proceeds of expressive activity relating to crime, but rather prohibits the singling out of those proceeds for special treatment while ignoring other assets.)
‹ 1104. Summary of Special Forfeiture Statute up 1106. Approval Considerations for Murder-for-Hire Indictments ›