3 ms·
I don't know enough details to actually judge the judge one way or the other, but in theory it would be entirely appropriate for a judge to say this if the firs
by travisp 13y ago
I don't know enough details to actually judge the judge one way or the other, but in theory it would be entirely appropriate for a judge to say this if the first amendment was not relevant to the defendant's guilt or innocence and bringing up the First Amendment would only confuse the jury.
I am not a lawyer, but if the judge was wrong that the First Amendment is not relevant to the crime and the law Olson is being charged under, then the defendant should be able to make that case in appeal (i.e. that the defendant was guilty of the crime, but that it is unconstitutional for this to be a crime).
It is someone of a legal philosophy debate: is the role of a jury simply to return a verdict of guilty or not guilty, or does the jury have the right to decide on the law itself?
In modern legal practice in the US, the law itself is not argued before the jury. What the judge seems to be doing here seems to be standard legal practice.
- trailcable 13y agoA judge can overrule your right to free speech? By limiting that reference to free speech? Hmmm.... For amendments to constitution I think the closest workaround they get is... Circumventing the 5th amendment by granting immunity then imposing contempt of court. Sounds like great grounds for appeal.
- mpyne 13y agoThe judge can rule that freedom of speech is not at issue. There are many well-settled instances in American case law where one's right to freedom of speech may be constrained (usually because it conflicts with the rights of others). E.g. in this case the accusation is that Olson vandalized BoA for 6 months, causing the bank to have to continually pay to have the chalk cleaned off and risking further property damage. Olson has a free speech right to protest, but that does not mean that he can unilaterally choose means that infringe on the rights of others. You are right that foreclosing the issue may make great grounds for an appeal though, it's possible an appeal court could rule that the First Amendment is relevant and cause the case to be re-tried.
- trailcable 13y agoThe end was the only point I was making. The person may be guilty of infractions per law. To not even be able to reference his right to free speech, if it's upheld I'm quite worried.
- anigbrowl 13y agoYou can't raise a defense that isn't valid in law as part of a trial in the common law system. His lawyer knows this perfectly well.
- travisp 13y agoHis right to free speech does not change whether or not he committed the crime according to the law (unless the law specifically refers to the right to free speech), so it is a separate issue from what is argued at the initial trial. If his right to free speech is indeed being violated by applying the law, then modern legal practice does not consider this to be an issue for the jury itself to consider (it is considered in a separate manner, by the judge and by appeal).
- gwright 13y agoWithout taking a stance on this particular case, it is worth noting that a court room during a trial is a very unusual place with regard to 'free speech'. An abolutist view of free speech rights would render a courtroom uncontrollable and so there are rules and procedures that are very specific to the circumstances of a trial. A similar observation could be made with respect to legislative assemblies, for example. In both circumstances, participants must follow the speaking rules or be subject to penalties of various sorts (contempt of court, censure, etc). Attempting to utilize 1st amendment rights in order to bypass those procedures seems like the wrong approach. A more logical avenue might be appeal based on the 6th Amendment right to a fair trial and/or due process arguments.