Free Speech

Paragraph: 77 - We have never held that the mere threat that individuals who engage in protected conduct will be subject to arrest and prosecution suffices to render a statute overbroad. Rather, our overbreadth jurisprudence has consistently focused on whether the prohibitory terms of a particular statute extend to protected conduct; that is, we have inquired whether individuals who engage in protected conduct can be convicted under a statute, not whether they might be subject to arrest and prosecution. E. g., Houston v. Hill, 482 U. S. 451, 459 (1987) N110* (a statute "that make[s] unlawful a substantial amount of constitutionally protected conduct may be held facially invalid" (emphasis added)); N111* Grayned v. City of Rockford, 408 U. S. 104, 114 (1972) (a statute may be overbroad "if in its reach it prohibits constitutionally protected conduct" (emphasis added)); N112* R. A. V. v. St. Paul, 505 U. S., at 397 (White, J., concurring in judgment) (deeming the ordinance at issue "fatally overbroad because it criminalizes ... expression protected by the First Amendment" (emphasis added)).

Notes:

• N110* / quote / endorsement / Q0582 /
• N111* / quote / endorsement / Q0494 /
• N112* / quote / endorsement / Q0583 /

Preferred Terms:

• (reg) Correct and Incorrect Overbreadth Analysis

Phrase match:

Source: http://freespeech.iath.virginia.edu/exist-speech/cocoon/freespeech/FOS_newSTerms_One?doc=/db/fos_all/federal/SC/2000s/20030407.538.US.343.xml&keyword1= expression protected expression&wordsBefore=&wordsAfter=#m1

Search time: 2018-04-26 09:34:45 Searcher: clm6u Editor: ars9ef tcs9pk Segmenter: ars9ef tcs9pk

Paragraph: 59 - As the history of cross burning indicates, a burning cross is not always intended to intimidate. Rather, sometimes the cross burning is a statement of ideology, a symbol of group solidarity. It is a ritual used at Klan gatherings, and it is used to represent the Klan itself. Thus, N113* "[b]urning a cross at a political rally would almost certainly be protected expression." R. A. V. v. St. Paul, 505 U. S., at 402, n. 4 (White, J., concurring in judgment) (citing Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U. S., at 445). Cf. National Socialist Party of America v. Skokie, 432 U. S. 43 (1977) (per curiam).

Notes:

• N113* / quote / endorsement / Q0584 /

Preferred Terms:

• (why is) Cross Burning

Phrase match:

Source: http://freespeech.iath.virginia.edu/exist-speech/cocoon/freespeech/FOS_newSTerms_One?doc=/db/fos_all/federal/SC/2000s/20030407.538.US.343.xml&keyword1= expression protected expression&wordsBefore=&wordsAfter=#m1

Search time: 2018-04-26 09:34:45 Searcher: clm6u Editor: ars9ef tcs9pk Segmenter: ars9ef tcs9pk