Stalking Statute (Part 2)

by | Apr 22, 2019 | Blog, Drug Crime, Know Your Rights

The three-judge panel continued: “The Legislature framed the New Jersey Code of Criminal Justice with a conscious deference to the right of free expression.” There are certain limited categories of speech, however, that are criminalized. These include: “speech that is integral to criminal conduct, speech that physically threatens or terrorizes another, or speech that is intended to incite imminent unlawful conduct.” United States v. Alvarez, 567 U.S. 709, 717 (2012). With respect to speech “integral to criminal conduct,” the “immunity” of the First Amendment will not extend to “a single and integrated course of conduct” that violates a valid criminal statute. Giboney v. Empire Storage & Ice Co., 336 U.S. 490, 498 (1949). The First Amendment also does not bar states from enacting laws that punish expressive activity when ‘substantial privacy interests are being invaded in an essentially intolerable manner. Freedom of speech does not encompass a right to abuse or annoy another person intentionally.”

Defendant’s videos were not protected speech under the First Amendment or the New Jersey Constitution. See United States v. Sayer, 748 F.3d 425, 429, 433-34 (1st Cir. 2014) (where defendant posted unauthorized advertisements, created false Facebook accounts using Jane Doe’s name, and posted sexually explicit pictures and videos of her, the court found that this was considered speech integral to the criminal conduct of harassment); see also United States v. Petrovic, 701 F.3d 849, 855 (8th Cir. 2012) (where defendant distributed Jane Doe’s confidential information, posted screen shots of private conversations, and put her contact information and her children’s social security numbers online, defendant’s communications were considered “integral to his criminal conduct of extortion” as they were the means of carrying out his threats.

Whether freedom of speech encompasses a right to intentionally annoy another person is debatable. A basic principal of first amendment jurisprudence is that the first amendment exists to protect offensive or annoying expression. That is the only kind of expression that anyone attempts to prevent.

Excellent rating
Based on 288 reviews
Google star 1Google star 2Google star 3Google star 4Google star 5
Google star 1Google star 2Google star 3Google star 4Google star 5
Worst Attorney I have ever encountered he will WASTE your time and steal your MONEY. Don't RECOMMEND!
Patric W
Google star 1Google star 2Google star 3Google star 4Google star 5
Fred completely exceeded all expectations with the result of my case.
John M
Google star 1Google star 2Google star 3Google star 4Google star 5
Current Pre law students and I had a question pertaining to a certain scenario in class. He responded back and gave me a case that broke down exactly what I asked for.
Chad T
Google star 1Google star 2Google star 3Google star 4Google star 5
Fred is an outstanding lawyer. As a fellow attorney, I've relied on his expertise in several cases, and have referred clients to him with excellent results.
Wyman
Google star 1Google star 2Google star 3Google star 4Google star 5
Mr. Sisto did an absolutely fantastic job on my case. He achieved the best possible result for me, and really made me feel comfortable and that he had my best interest at heart. He kept in constant communication with me, was very prompt in his response to my calls and emails, and he went above and beyond in answering any and all questions that I had. His professionalism and the lengths to which he went to secure a good result for me really helped make a stressful situation feel better. If you ever find yourself in need of legal representation, I highly recommend Fred Sisto. You will not regret it.
Michael G
Google star 1Google star 2Google star 3Google star 4Google star 5
Fred is extremely knowledgeable and so helpful. I would recommend him to anyone. He really goes above and beyond. He cares about his work and his clients.
Kevin M
Google star 1Google star 2Google star 3Google star 4Google star 5
Fred is the best and his DUI alerts are not to be missed!
Rich D
Google star 1Google star 2Google star 3Google star 4Google star 5
Very good
Nazario B
Google star 1Google star 2Google star 3Google star 4Google star 5
Fred is a very knowledgeable and effective attorney. His knowledge of the law enables him to understand your issue, plan a strategy to address it and explain the strategy to you. He also possesses excellent communication skills that assist him interactions with other attorneys and judges.
Michael G
Google star 1Google star 2Google star 3Google star 4Google star 5
Many thanks to Fred for the posts of where the DWI checkpoints will be held and for the advise to take an Uber when planning a night out!!
Michael K