Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 2 of 2
Full-Text Articles in Law
Targeting Conduct: A Constitutional Method Of Penalizing Hate Crimes, Kevin N. Ainsworth
Targeting Conduct: A Constitutional Method Of Penalizing Hate Crimes, Kevin N. Ainsworth
Fordham Urban Law Journal
Forty-three states have enacted hate-crime statutes. These laws generally fall into one of two classes, either hate-speech or penalty-enhancement statutes. The former has sought to control virulent expression by punishing the utterance or display of words or symbols that the user knows will arouse anger in others on the basis of race, color, religion, gender, or some other immutable characteristic. The United States Supreme Court examined an ordinance of this type in R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul and found that the law infringed on the First Amendment right to free speech. Penalty enhancement statutes vary slightly among states, but …
The Need For Fair Trials Does Not Justify A Disciplinary Rule That Broadly Restricts An Attorney's Speech, Thomas Gibson, Diana Parker
The Need For Fair Trials Does Not Justify A Disciplinary Rule That Broadly Restricts An Attorney's Speech, Thomas Gibson, Diana Parker
Fordham Urban Law Journal
In "Gentile v. State Bar of Nevada," the Supreme Court held a Nevada law prohibiting attorneys from making extra-judicial statements that could reasonably be expected to lead to prejudiced proceedings unconstitutionally vague. The safe harbor provision of New York's restriction on extra-judicial attorney speech seems to suffer from a similar deficiency, and must therefore be amended. To cure vagueness concerns, an amended rule should pay heed to the timing of prohibited public statements by attorneys, limiting speech restrictions to the month preceding the start of the trial. The amended rule should also include a clear and present danger standard to …