Stalking Statute (Part 2)

by Fred Sisto | 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 
    
  
 
 
      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 
 
 
 
 
    Hired Mr.Sisto to handle a case of mine a couple of months ago and while the service was okay the customer service was awful. When I had inquired about a charge I was unsure of on my bill, Mr. Sisto immediately got defensive and had the unprofessionalism to ask me if I “was high” for asking this question. I wonder if Mr. Sisto asks all of his clients this question or only the ones who have jobs in the cannabis industry? Regardless, I don’t believe this was an appropriate question to ask, regardless of the industry one works in, and therefore Mr. Sisto needs to heavily work on his customer service.

Edit: Mr. Sisto had the UNPROFESSIONALISM to reach out to my family and ask them to ask me to take down my review instead of reaching out directly towards me when it was I who was his client, not my family. Clearly speaks to the unprofessionalism surrounding this practice. This has not been the only time Mr.Sisto has gone directly to my family instead of me, his client, for important legal matters and I will not seek out his services again.

For those who may not understand Spanish, the email starts with “You should speak to your daughter regarding the review she has just published.”

Edit to Response: As an attorney, one should be able to make appropriate questions and comments regardless if a client is “uncooperative” or “disrespectful.” The fact that rather than apologizing for the awful interaction with your firm, and I was not released  “within hours” as you claim shows how low value your firm is and how you openly  instead chose to harass my family through email for my initial review rather than actually revomy case which I ended up doing and you chareged me for . Regardless of results, your character speaks volumes and anyone who reads this would know better than to give their money to an awful person such as yourself. What a shame
     Ximena C 
 
 
 
 
    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 
 
 
 
 
    I called Mr. Sisto a few weeks back and he returned the call immediately!  I asked a few questions and he clearly explained the options for one of my employees.  He then followed up with a detailed proposal.  He was completely knowledgeable, helpful and insightful.  If I ever had to use him I would feel VERY comfortable with his representation.
     Dave P 
 
 
 
 
    Highly  professional

The lawyer Frederick is a serious and professional person, he helped me a lot in my case, I recommend him a lot to help you too, he is always in contact with you explaining the process, a very patient and kind person.
     Ca 
 
 
 
 
    Always up to date on with his services.
     Anthony L 
 
 
 
 
    Nice to know where to avoid,I drive a taxi and can save time if I know where they are because they tie up traffic.
     John M 
 
 
 
 
    Although I don't know Fred,
he has my appreciation in his fight for my liberty.
Mothers against drunk driving have ruined as many lives as they have saved.
We need bread and butter laws in N. J !
Stopping moterists assuming they are breaking a law is against my rights.
N. J. Is a police state with a cop on every corner.
From the unjust gas tax to the corruption in Trenton, we need more attorneys like
Frederick Sisto. He is aware of the people's shrinking liberties.
     Freehold F 
 
 
 
 
    Fred,
Thank you for the notifications on the DUI stops.
     Joe F 
 
 
 
 
    Fred is a fantastic attorney who is very informative, knows the system well, and is very thorough.
     Bob V