,
8 tweets,
3 min read
Read on Twitter
1/ Very generally speaking, the First Amendment forbids the government from restricting (or criminalizing) speech (like photos) because of its content or message. US v Stevens, 559 US 460. @NBCNews
2/ 1st Amendment provides “Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech.” But free speech is not absolute. @NBCLatino @craigmelvin
3/ While free speech “means that government has no power to restrict expression because of its message, its ideas, its subject matter, or its content,” (Ashcroft v ACLU) certain “well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech” permit content-based restrictions on speech.
4/ One such category of permissible content-based restrictions is “speech integral to criminal conduct.” Giboney, 336 US at 498. @JoyceWhiteVance
5/ A person violates the federal extortion law, § 875(d), if he transmits a communication containing any threat to injure the reputation of a person with intent to extort a “thing of value” from that person. US v Hobgood, 868 F.3d 744. @CrimeADay
6/ Big question: Could a demand for (a) no negative coverage by @washingtonpost or (b) a positive statement by @JeffBezos be a “thing of value” under Section 875(d)? Answer: Probably!
7/ Congress has used "thing of value" in different criminal statutes. It has evolved into a term of art which the courts generally construe to envelop both tangibles and intangibles. US v Nilsen, 967 F.2d 539. @page88 @harrylitman
8/ A “thing of value” under § 875(d) likely includes intangible objectives. Numerous intangible objectives have been held to constitute things of value under a variety of other statutes, including even romantic pursuits and sex-related consideration!
