|
Enactment & enforcement of ordinances directed with reasonable specificity
(Gregory v. Chicago)
4. Analysis or application:
1) Violation of Due Process Standard of Vagueness
(Words of the Ordinance is Unconstitutionally vague )
: subject right to assembly to an unascertainable standard & unconstitutionally broad
Authorizes the punishment of constitutionally protected conduct
Conduct that annoys some people = x annoy others =vague & no standard is specified at all Connally v. General Construction Co. : men of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning |
Ordinance broad enough to encompass many types of conduct & city is free to prohibit from doing certain acts through
Enactment & enforcement of ordinances directed with reasonable specificity
(Gregory v. Chicago)
rights of speech or press (1st Amendment) & due process were violated
2)Violation of Right of Free Assembly & Association
Mere public intolerance of animosity cannot be the basis for abridgment of constitutional freedoms => contains an obvious invitation to discriminatory enforcement against those whose association is annoying because their ideas, lifestyle or physical appearance is resented by the majority of their fellow citizens
1st & 14th Amendments do not permit a State to make criminal the exercise of the right of assembly simply because it may be annoying to some people.
<Dissent>
-United States v. national Dairy Corp(1963)
: statute forbidding sales of goods at “unreasonably” low prices to eliminate a competitor
=> give a seller adequate notice that sales below costs were illegal
& rights of speech or press (1st Amendment) & US v. Robel(1967),..
HOWEVER, in this case, picketing is not a communicative endeavor & incidental impact on speech
(X) vague although it is difficult to tell whether certain other kinds of conduct fell within this language. => examined in the light of the CONDUCT
= United States v. Harriss(1954) & United States v. Raines(1960)
: (X) attack the statute on the ground that impliedly it also applies to other people and situations
Cox v. Lousiana(1965) – forbidding picketing and parading near a court house.
=> valid regulation of conduct rather than pure speech.
=> subject to regulation even though it was intertwined with expression&association
& Ordinance criminal statute would be dealt with
: ordinance clearly reaches certain conduct & not infirm on its face
& No information from this record as to what conduct was charged against these defendants => x judge the statute as applied
When dealing with conduct, ordinance’s wide discretion in a wide circumstances is irrelevant.
5. Conclusion: Reversed
6. Feedback:
Due process clause – 5th & 14th (vagueness x / substantial / procedural / bill of rights )
Freedom of expression & speech
: 1st amendment
Freedom of speech를 제한하기 위해서는 법으로 statute로 제한. 법 규정으로 기본권을 제한하는 케이스들이 이제까지 쭉 있었다.
어떻게 제한하였는가? Overbroad & vague 한 형태로 기본권을 제한하였다.
위헌적으로 제한.
-Compelling interest 안 따진 이유?
내 생각으로는 이미 위헌이기 때문이다. Overbroad and vague 한 형태로 이미 제한 형태 자체가 허용되지 않는다. 위헌이 아닐 경우에만 compelling interest를 따지는 것 같음 (OK)
On its fact (이 법은 본질을 따질 필요도 없다)로 위헌.
annoying이라는 단어 자체가 vague and over general
=> 법 자체가 위헌. (due process 위반하여 표현의 자유 침해)
-speech는 최대한 보호가 된다. Conduct는 규제가 많이 된다.
picketing = conduct 합헌케이스 있다 (dissent)
재반박 한다면?
Conduct에 대해 법이 저렇게 규정된다면 conduct 행동도 시작도 못하게 된다.
너무 vague하기 때문이다.
|