Talk:Alexander v. United States
|
|
I moved the text here, because it was only a transcript of the Supreme Court's ruling, and not a discussion of the decision. -- Zoe
Alexander v. United States 509 U.S. 544 (1993)
QUESTION: Was the forfeiture in this case, the assets of a business convicted of obscenity law violations, an unconstitutional “prior restraint” rather than a permissible criminal punishment? ANSWER: No, Judge Rehnquist first defined the definition of a “prior restraint” and then gave the opinion. The court held that a prior restraint is used “to describe administrative and judicial orders forbidding certain communications when issued in advance of the time that such communication are to occur. Temporary restraint order and permanent injunction-i.e. Court orders that actually forbid speech activities-are classic examples of prior restraints.” In this case Alexander’s Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) forfeiture order does not forbid him from engaging in any expressive activities in the future, nor require him to obtain prior permission. It only deprives him of specific assets related to previous racketeering violations. Hypothetically, he could start a new store tomorrow but that seems quite unlikely after the government just burned 9 million dollars of his merchandise. DISSENT: Justice Kennedy felt that the forfeiture of a legitimate expression as punishment for a single past speech offense wrong. He held that: “Until now I thought one could browse through any book or film store in the United States without fear that the proprietor had chosen each item to avoid risk to the whole inventory and indeed to the business itself. This ominous, onerous threat undermines free speech and press’s principles essential to our personal freedom.”