Comments on: The State’s Revenge-Porn Arguments 4: Speech Integral to Criminal Conduct

By: Mark Bennett

Mark Bennett — Wed, 07 Feb 2018 23:32:51 +0000

In reply to andrews. Your analysis is incorrect. "True threats" are speech; they are just historically unprotected speech. (The scope of that unprotected speech is an interesting open question.) I would guess that common-law extortion is historically unprotected speech.

By: Mark Bennett

Mark Bennett — Wed, 07 Feb 2018 23:30:16 +0000

In reply to Mark Bennett. Nope. Unaddressed question. I suspect the answer is "obv."

By: Josh C

Josh C — Wed, 07 Feb 2018 22:49:05 +0000

In reply to Mark Bennett. Have they ever refused to do so?

By: andrews

andrews — Sat, 03 Feb 2018 13:38:51 +0000

True. I tend to think of blackmail or extortion as requiring something beyond pure speech. In Florida, blackmail is deemed coersion, and is lumped in with what we might call “true threats”.

By: Mark Bennett

Mark Bennett — Fri, 02 Feb 2018 01:12:14 +0000

In reply to andrews. Interestingly, the Supreme Court has never signed off on "blackmail" or "extortion" as a category of historically unprotected speech.

By: andrews

andrews — Thu, 01 Feb 2018 14:37:32 +0000

Wait, they may almost have something here. OK, the statute fails as to the person posting the material, no doubt about that, since it is a content-based speech regulation. This may cover all the persons charged to date.

But the speech is kind of integral to someone else’s criminal conduct. Consider the guy who says that he will keep the material posted on his website unless you pay $200 .. $500 to the “takedown hammer” guy. That could run afoul of blackmail statutes.

Not licensed in Texas, no idea if Texas has a blackmail statute, do not normally do criminal, and so on.