here are some student postings

student posting #1

Date: March 20, 2006

Re: The Son of Sam Law is inconsistent with the First Amendment

File: Rocky

I. INTRODUCTION AND STATEMENT OF FACTS

New York's "Son of Sam" law requires that an accused or convicted criminal's income from works describing his crime be deposited in an escrow account. These funds are then made available to the victims of the crime and the criminal's other creditors.

II. QUESTION

To consider whether this statute is consistent with the First Amendment.

III. SHORT ANSWER and SUPPORTING LAW

A statute is presumptively inconsistent with the First Amendment if it imposes a financial burden on speakers because of the content of their speech. Leathers v. Medlock, 499 U.S. 439, 447 (1991).

IV. DISCUSSION and CONCLUSION

The Son of Sam law is such a content-based statute. It singles out income derived from expressive activity for a burden the State places on no other income, and it is directed only at works with a specified content.

As in SIMON & SCHUSTER v. CRIME VICTIMS BD., 502 U.S. 105 (1991) the Court concluded simply that, in the Son of Sam law, New York has singled out speech on a particular subject for a financial burden that it places on no other speech and no other income. The State's interest in compensating victims from the fruits of crime is a compelling one, but the Son of Sam law is not narrowly tailored to advance that objective. As a result, the statute is inconsistent with the First Amendment.