United States v. Alvarez, USSC No. 11-210 (6/28/12), affirming 638 F.3d 666 (9th Cir. 2011). The Nation well knows that one of the costs of the First Amendment is that it protects the speech we detest as well as the speech we embrace. Though few might find respondent’s statements anything but contemptible, his right to… Read more
A. Overbreadth
State v. Christopher J. Lesik, 2010 WI App 12, PFR filed For Lesik: Anthony Cotton Issue/Holding: Sexual assault (intercourse) of a child, § 948.02, isn’t unconstitutionally overbroad, against a theory that it criminalizes acts undertaken for “proper medical purpose.” Although the statute is silent with respect to medical conduct, potential overbreadth may be cured through judicial construction… Read more
State v. Robert T., 2008 WI App 22For Robert T.: Bradley J. Bloch Issue: Whether § 947.015 (2003-04) (“Bomb Scares”) is overbroad and therefore cannot support prosecution for a phoned-in but false bomb threat. Holding: ¶12 Robert T. argues that the statute suffers from overbreadth because it prohibits speech that could be protected. We disagree. Prior Wisconsin opinions… Read more
Hodgkins v. Peterson, 355 F.3d 1048 (7th Cir. 2004) Issue/Holding: In order not to offend the First Amendment, a statute that regulates the time, place, and manner of expression must be (1) content neutral, (2) narrowly tailored to serve a significant governmental interest, and (3) allow for ample alternative channels for the expression. Ward, 491 U.S… Read more
Predick v. O’Connor, 2003 WI App 46 Issue/Holding: Banishment from victims’ county, under harassment injunction, § 813.125, upheld: ¶18 Thus, banishment is not a per se constitutional violation. As the previous discussion demonstrates, there is no exact formula for determining whether a geographic restriction is narrowly tailored. Each case must be analyzed on its own facts, circumstances… Read more
City of Milwaukee v. Tanya M. Bean, et al., 2001 WI App 258, PFR filed 11/8/01 For Bean: Jerome F. Buting, Pamela S. Moorshead Issue1: Whether prostitution activities in the area encompassed by the injunction were shown sufficiently to constitute a nuisance. Holding: ¶13. Although it is true, as the appellants argue, that the infusion of… Read more
State v. Scott L. Stevenson, 2000 WI 71, 236 Wis. 2d 86, 613 N.W.2d 72, on certification For Stevenson: Elizabeth Cavendish-Sosinski, Daniel P. Fay Issue: Whether § 944.205(2)(a) is overbroad. Holding: Yes. § 944.205(a) (a) prohibits depictions of nudity without the person’s knowledge and consent. Because this statute implicates first amendment rights, the state assumes the… Read more
State v. Matthew C. Janssen, 219 Wis.2d 362, 580 N.W.2d 260 (1998), affirming 213 Wis. 2d 471, 570 N.W.2d 746 (Ct. App. 1997) For Janssen: Eugene A. Bartman, Brian G. Figy, SPD, Appleton Trial Issue: Whether the flag desecration statute is constitutional. Holding: The flag desecration statute, sec. 946.05, violates first amendment overbreadth principles, and can’t be… Read more
