![]() ![]() Through the two-pronged review, the Court held that the state had a compelling interest in “depriving criminals of the profits of their crimes, and in using these funds to compensate victims,” but the statute was not narrowly tailored to achieve the compelling interests. Court said law was overbroad, not narrowly tailored The Court held that the statute was content-based and therefore “presumptively inconsistent with the First Amendment” and subject to strict scrutiny. (Justice Clarence Thomas did not participate.) In an 8-0 decision authored by Sandra Day O’Connor, the Court unanimously reversed the lower courts’ decisions. ![]() Court said Son of Sam law violated First Amendment The district court and the Second Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the statute. Simon and Schuster sued the Board claiming that the law violated the First Amendment. Specifically, New York’s law provided for the creation of an escrow account into which profits from the sale of a criminal’s description through any media outlet of his or her crimes or his or her “thoughts, feelings, opinions or emotions” regarding such crime were placed for five years.ĭuring that time, victims of the crimes could recover a portion of the profits. After publication of the book, the New York State Crime Victims Board notified Simon and Schuster that it was violating New York’s “Son of Sam” law. The book sold well and was later adapted to the movie screen as Goodfellas. In 1986 publishing company Simon and Schuster contracted with Henry Hill, a mobster-turned-informant, for the publication of a book based on Hill's life by Nicholas Pileggi, Wiseguy: Life in a Mafia Family. New York seeks proceeds from mobster's book under Son of Sam law These laws redirected any profits derived from the sale of memoirs or criminal admissions to the victims of those crimes. Public outcry was strong, and state and federal legislators enacted “Son of Sam” laws to prevent criminals from profiting from the stories of their crimes. In 1977 the “Son of Sam” killer, David Berkowitz, made national headlines for a second time by earning large profits on the sale of his memoir about the murders that made him infamous. ![]() Son of Sam laws prevent criminals from profiting from their crime with memoirs 105 (1991), determined that the state of New York’s “Son of Sam” laws were a violation of free speech under the First Amendment. Members of the New York State Crime Victims Board, 502 U.S. The Supreme Court decision in Simon and Schuster v. (AP Photo/Nati Harnik, used with permission from the Associated Press) The state of New York tried to acquire the proceeds from the book under Son of Sam laws prohibiting criminals from profiting from their crimes, but the Supreme Court said the law violated the First Amendment. The exploits of Hill, who sought refuge in the witness protection program after agreeing to testify against his former mob bosses from New York, were the basis for a book about his life. In this photo, Henry Hill sits in a restaurant in Nebraska in 2005. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |