Posted on 12/04/2018 2:05:54 PM PST by E. Pluribus Unum
A federal appeals court has tossed out parts of a law that would punish those who would knowingly encourage immigrants to come to, or remain, in the U.S. illegally.
A three-judge panel of the San Francisco-based 9th Circuit concluded the federal law unconstitutionally bans a range of protected speech.
The Justice Department prosecuted a San Jose woman who ran an immigration consulting firm, for allegedly helping arrange green cards for those working in the country illegally.
The judges concluded the law’s reach was overbroad.
“We do not think that any reasonable reading of the statute can exclude speech. To conclude otherwise, we would have to say that ‘encourage’ does not mean encourage, and that a person cannot ‘induce’ another with words. At the very least, it is clear that the statute potentially criminalizes the simple words – spoken to a son, a wife, a parent, a friend, a neighbor, a coworker, a student, a client – ‘I encourage you to stay here,'” the opinion said. “The statute thus criminalizes a substantial amount of constitutionally-protected expression. The burden on First Amendment rights is intolerable when compared to the statute’s legitimate sweep.”
The law would make it punishable if someone “encourages or induces an alien to come to, enter, or reside in the United States” if the encourager knew, or recklessly disregarded “the fact that such coming to, entry, or residence is or will be in violation of law.”
There was no immediate response to the decision from the Justice Department.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
It’s not a court, it’s a circus.
9th Circus..............................
So now I guess free speech entails one to yell “FIRE” in a crowded theater?
So, it’s just free speech if I give someone the code to the judge’s security system?
Even pretending there’s anything left of the first amendment is beyond laughable.
-PJ
So, once more, the 9th circus makes a joke of logic.
They are saying, in effect, that laws establishing penalties for encouraging someone to commit a crime are unconstitutional.
In a logically world, they would be removed from the bench, tarred and feathered and runout of town on a rail.
But apparently we have judges which can intrude into EVERYTHING and say ANYTHING with utter impunity.
I guess accountants can teach classes on how to cheat on your taxes?
Do it’s just free speech to incite someone to commit a crime?
So children should be free to sing Christian Christmas carols in public school, draw crosses in their art classes, and pray before eating their meals. Immigration attorneys should not be the only class that has the right of free speech, particularly when those in our public schools should not have their freedom of religion infringed upon by government authorities. It is clearly unconstitutional.
It’s not speech, it’s conspiracy to break the law.
It always did.
Aiding and abetting a crime is another thing.
So any talk that involving discussions about committing crime is now not a crime, ergo, such things like conspiracy are now not crimes?
But if Trump said he wants to build a tower in Russia that’s an impeachable offense right?
8 USC 1324 (1)(a)(iv) was adopted back in 1986.
Hilarious that the Leftist Goons on the Circus think they can overthrow it now, three decades later.
“So now I guess free speech entails one to yell “FIRE” in a crowded theater?”
And aiding and abetting criminals.
An odd ruling, because I would PRESUME that when bringing an actual case using this law, they would first establish that the person “encouraging” someone to stay KNEW that the person was illegally here.
Which is what the court said would be a necessary precondition.
Beyond that, there has never been protection for encouraging someone to break a law, that in fact has been seen as enticement, or worse.
Heck, we just found some poor girl guilty of MURDER because her boyfriend wanted to kill himself and she eventually decided not to fight him, and was accused of “encouraging him”.
This is the same dumpster fire of a court that upheld a 10 day waiting period on people who already own guns saying, “A 10-day cooling-off period would serve to discourage such conduct and would impose no serious burden on the core Second Amendment right of defense of the home,”
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/dec/14/court-oks-application-of-california-gun-waiting-pe/
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.