• Embed Doc
  • Copy Link
  • Readcast
  • Collections
  • CommentGo Back
Download
 
 
No. 08-769
 
In the Supreme Court of the United States
 __________ 
U
NITED
S
TATES OF
 A 
MERICA 
,
 
P
ETITIONER
 
v.
R
OBERT
J.
 
S
TEVENS
 
 __________ 
ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 
 
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT 
  __________ BRIEF FOR THE CATO INSTITUTE AS
 AMICUS CURIAE 
IN SUPPORT OF RESPONDENT __________ 
I
LYA 
S
HAPIRO
G
ENE
C.
 
S
CHAERR
 CATO Institute Counsel of Record
 
1000 Mass. Ave., N.W.
G
EOFFREY 
P.
 
E
 ATON
 Washington, D.C. 20001
J
 ACOB
R.
 
L
OSHIN
 
(202) 842-0200 Winston & Strawn LLP 
 
1700 K Street, N.W.
 L
INDA 
T.
 
C
OBERLY 
 
Washington, D.C. 20006 
 
Winston & Strawn LLP (202) 282-5000 35 
 
W.
 
W 
 ACKER
 D
RIVE 
 C 
HICAGO
,
 
IL
 
60601(312)
 
558 
 
5600 Counsel for
 Amicus Curiae
 
 
QUESTIONS PRESENTED
1. Whether the First Amendment protects depictionsof animal cruelty, as opposed to the (rightly criminal-ized) cruelty itself.2. Whether balancing “Government interest” against“social value” is the proper way to identify whole newcategories of constitutionally unprotected speech.
 
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
QUESTION PRESENTED...........................................iTABLE OF AUTHORITIES.......................................ivINTRODUCTION AND INTERESTS OF
 AMICUS CURIAE 
.......................................................1STATEMENT OF THE CASE.....................................3SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT.....................................5 ARGUMENT................................................................6I. Using A Balancing Test To Strip First Amendment Protection From WholeCategories Of Speech On Account Of Their“Low Value” Would Entail A Radical BreakFrom Over Sixty Years Of Precedent....................6 A. To justify suppressing a new category of speech based on its content, theGovernment seeks to revive and expanddicta from
Chaplinsky
.......................................6B. Since
Chaplinsky
, the Court has carefullylimited the categories of unprotectedsubject matter and narrowly restrictedthe scope of each category.................................9C. By proposing to create a broad newcategory of unprotected speech, theGovernment urges the abandonment of this Court’s longstanding disfavor of categorical proscriptions on expression.........13
of 00

Leave a Comment

You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...
You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...