))
Eugene Volokh on Restraining Orders and the First Amendment
Manage episode 390417777 series 3344448
Treść dostarczona przez Tim Kowal & Jeff Lewis, Tim Kowal, and Jeff Lewis. Cała zawartość podcastów, w tym odcinki, grafika i opisy podcastów, jest przesyłana i udostępniana bezpośrednio przez Tim Kowal & Jeff Lewis, Tim Kowal, and Jeff Lewis lub jego partnera na platformie podcastów. Jeśli uważasz, że ktoś wykorzystuje Twoje dzieło chronione prawem autorskim bez Twojej zgody, możesz postępować zgodnie z procedurą opisaną tutaj https://pl.player.fm/legal.
Prof. Eugene Volokh joined us to discuss restraining orders, how many of them violate the First Amendment as unlawful prior restraints, and how you can spot the First Amendment problems. The purpose of a restraining orders is to get a person to stop harassing you, but “harassment” can be a pretty vague term—and the same goes for “bullying,” “cyberbullying,” “hate speech,” etc.—especially when no physical violence threatened or happening. The result is that many restraining orders not only prevent the subject from speaking TO the plaintiff, but from speaking ABOUT the plaintiff, and last INDEFINITELY.
Here are the key issues to spot the next time a client calls you about a restraining order or injunction that affects free speech:
- Raise First Amendment challenges, and get familiar with the precedent by reading Prof. Volokh’s articles.
- Look to see if the restraining order merely prohibits speaking to the plaintiff, or goes further and prohibits speaking ABOUT the plaintiff. That’s a big difference that implicates the First Amendment.
- If the subject of a restraining order is facing contempt, consider raising the unconstitutionality of the order as a collateral bar. An unconstitutional order cannot be a basis for contempt, and unconstitutionality is never waived.
Prof. Eugene Volokh’s biography, LinkedIn profile, and X/Twitter feed.
Appellate Specialist Jeff Lewis' biography, LinkedIn profile, and Twitter feed.
Appellate Specialist Tim Kowal's biography, LinkedIn profile, Twitter feed, and YouTube page.
Sign up for Not To Be Published, Tim Kowal’s weekly legal update, or view his blog of recent cases.
The California Appellate Law Podcast thanks Casetext for sponsoring the podcast. Listeners receive a discount on Casetext Basic Research at casetext.com/CALP. The co-hosts, Jeff and Tim, were also invited to try Casetext’s newest technology, CoCounsel, the world’s first AI legal assistant. You can discover CoCounsel for yourself with a demo and free trial at casetext.com/CoCounsel.
Other items discussed in the episode:
- One-to-One Speech vs. One-to-Many Speech, Criminal Harassment Laws, and “Cyberstalking”, 107 Nw. U. L. Rev. 731 (2013)
- Overbroad Injunctions Against Speech (Especially in Libel and Harassment Cases), 45 Harv. J. L. & Pub. Pol. 147 (2022).
- Organization for a Better Austin v. Keefe, 402 U.S. 415 (1971)
- Chan v. Ellis, 296 Ga. 838 (Ga. 2015)
- "The First Amendment and Refusals to Deal” via Reason
- Videos from this episode will be posted at Tim Kowal’s YouTube channel.
150 odcinków
Udostępnij
