Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: stylin_geek
ex post facto wouldn't apply as it protects one from prosecution for something that was done prior to it being illegal.

As an example in this case, say the law was changed and the penalty was a fine of $100 a day per violation. He could be fined for every day that the picture remained up after the law went into effect but could not be fined for days it was up prior to the law taking effect.

55 posted on 12/07/2004 10:21:14 AM PST by Phantom Lord (Advantages are taken, not handed out)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies ]


To: Phantom Lord

I was doing some research, and it appears ex post facto is supposed to apply to both civil and criminal law. Currently, precedent appears to say it only applies to criminal law, however, that appears to be an extremely flawed decision (Calder vs. Bull) by the Supreme Court.

But, if the law is changed, does his hanging of the photo become a criminal offense or a civil violation?

All that aside, as one poster pointed out, there are also free speech issues involved. Which, is probably the better argument.


75 posted on 12/07/2004 10:26:51 AM PST by stylin_geek (Liberalism: comparable to a chicken with its head cut off, but with more spastic motions)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson