Constitutional Law Essay 1

Assuming that anti-tax’s statements fall within the scope of the sedition statute, what
constitutional arguments can be made against convicting him for violating the statute?

 Is ripeness an issue?
 There is no issue of advocacy of imminent lawbreaking because the call on viewers to
refuse to pay this proposed tax is…. Irrelevant. The proposed tax increase has not been
enacted.
 Issue is whether the statute is overbroad
 First amendment generally restricts the government’s regulation of speech based on
cotent of speech unless the government can prove that the restriction is necessary to
achieve a compelling interest
 The speech that incites imminent lawless action and fighting words are not protected
 Overbroad regulations that punish substantially more speech than is ithin its legitimate
ssweep is not enforceable against anyone
 Overbroad regulations are legitimate if they have been interpreted to bar the threat to
constitutionally protected speech
 This regulation goes beyond fighting words or inciting imminent lawless action and is
therefore overbroad
 However, statute was construed to apply to only imminent lawbreaking and is therefore
enforceable because it was so construed
 There is a prediction of revolution but it is not punishable because it does not advocate
an imminent lawless action but rather predicts a future reaction
 Saying “refuse to pay the tax” is not punishable because th tax has not yet been passed,
so any encouragement of nonpayment Is not encouraging an imminent lawless action
 The statement to “make Tax pay” is punishable because an arsonist burned their house
down after Anti-Tax urged people to make Tax pay and provided the address
Assuming that anti-tax’s statements fall within the scope of the abusive words statute, what
constitutional arguments can be made against convicting him for violating the statute?

 AntiTax called on viewers to make Tax pay up and gave the home address and an arsonist
started a fire.
 The first amendment does not protect fighting words, and “dishonest imbecile” probably
would not constitute fighting words
 Statute punishes directing any abusive word or terms at another
 This statute is too broad because not every abusive word is likely to cause physical
retaliation and this statute has not been limited by any court interpretation (unlike the
sedition statute) and is therefore overbroad