🇺🇸
Constitutional Law • First Amendment - Free Speech
CONLAW#122
Legal Definition
A law is unconstitutionally vague and violates Due Process if a reasonable person cannot tell what speech is prohibited and what is allowed.
Plain English Explanation
Laws have to be written clearly so people know what's allowed and what's not allowed. The whole point of having laws is so people can follow them. But if a law is super vague and confusing, how is anyone supposed to know if they're breaking it?
Imagine a town passes a law that says "No one can say anything offensive." Well, what counts as "offensive"? Different people find different things offensive. Without a clear definition, that law is too vague. A reasonable person wouldn't be able to tell if what they're saying is actually illegal or not.
That's why laws that restrict speech or expression have to be crystal clear. The average Joe on the street needs to be able to read the law and understand what's prohibited. Vague laws that leave too much open to interpretation risk punishing people unfairly and stepping on their free speech rights. They violate the Constitutional principle of due process - the idea that laws have to be clear and people have to be given proper notice of what's illegal.
So in a nutshell, laws, especially ones about speech, have to be specific and understandable to be constitutional. Anything too vague gets struck down for not giving people fair warning about what's against the rules. The goal is to avoid laws written so loosely that they could be enforced in an arbitrary or discriminatory way.
Imagine a town passes a law that says "No one can say anything offensive." Well, what counts as "offensive"? Different people find different things offensive. Without a clear definition, that law is too vague. A reasonable person wouldn't be able to tell if what they're saying is actually illegal or not.
That's why laws that restrict speech or expression have to be crystal clear. The average Joe on the street needs to be able to read the law and understand what's prohibited. Vague laws that leave too much open to interpretation risk punishing people unfairly and stepping on their free speech rights. They violate the Constitutional principle of due process - the idea that laws have to be clear and people have to be given proper notice of what's illegal.
So in a nutshell, laws, especially ones about speech, have to be specific and understandable to be constitutional. Anything too vague gets struck down for not giving people fair warning about what's against the rules. The goal is to avoid laws written so loosely that they could be enforced in an arbitrary or discriminatory way.
Hypothetical
Hypo 1: The town of Pleasantville passes an ordinance that says "No inappropriate language in public spaces." Bob is having a heated argument with his neighbor in a crowded public park and yells "I'm sick of your stupid nonsense!" A police officer hears this, determines this language is inappropriate, and arrests Bob for violating the ordinance. Result: The ordinance against "inappropriate language" is likely unconstitutionally vague. It does not define what counts as inappropriate or give any clear guidelines. Without more specifics, a reasonable person in Bob's shoes would not know if this comment crossed the line. The law does not give fair notice of what kind of speech is prohibited and risks arbitrary enforcement based on individual opinions of "inappropriate."
Hypo 2: The state of Hypofornia makes it a crime to "annoy a child under the age of 18." Bob, an actor in a traveling theatre production, performs a show at a local mall where he plays an evil villain. After the show, he stays in character while signing autographs, pretending to threaten and be mean to the kids. Later, he is arrested and charged with annoying children. Result: The terms "annoy" and is not defined in this statute. Without more clarity, an actor like Bob would have no way of knowing if staying in character and playfully pretending to be villainous would count as criminally annoying children. Reasonable people could disagree on what level of behavior is merely bothersome vs. what rises to the level of criminal annoyance. This law does not provide clear guidelines and could punish a wide range of behaviors based on subjective views of "annoying."
Hypo 3: The city of Pleasantville passes a law making it illegal to "display any obscene materials in a public park." Bob sets up an art installation in the town square that include a series of nude photos of himself making love to watermelons while wearing the tiniest cowboy hat. He is arrested and prosecuted under this statute. Result: This law is likely not unconstitutionally vague. The term "obscene materials" has an established legal meaning that has been upheld and elaborated in prior case law. It provides more guidance than vague terms like inappropriate or annoying, which are left entirely to subjective interpretation. A person like Bob would have a better sense of what crosses the established line into obscenity based on precedent. While there could still be debate in marginal cases, the term obscenity provides a more concrete starting point. This law provides more meaningful notice and lends itself less to totally arbitrary enforcement.
Hypo 2: The state of Hypofornia makes it a crime to "annoy a child under the age of 18." Bob, an actor in a traveling theatre production, performs a show at a local mall where he plays an evil villain. After the show, he stays in character while signing autographs, pretending to threaten and be mean to the kids. Later, he is arrested and charged with annoying children. Result: The terms "annoy" and is not defined in this statute. Without more clarity, an actor like Bob would have no way of knowing if staying in character and playfully pretending to be villainous would count as criminally annoying children. Reasonable people could disagree on what level of behavior is merely bothersome vs. what rises to the level of criminal annoyance. This law does not provide clear guidelines and could punish a wide range of behaviors based on subjective views of "annoying."
Hypo 3: The city of Pleasantville passes a law making it illegal to "display any obscene materials in a public park." Bob sets up an art installation in the town square that include a series of nude photos of himself making love to watermelons while wearing the tiniest cowboy hat. He is arrested and prosecuted under this statute. Result: This law is likely not unconstitutionally vague. The term "obscene materials" has an established legal meaning that has been upheld and elaborated in prior case law. It provides more guidance than vague terms like inappropriate or annoying, which are left entirely to subjective interpretation. A person like Bob would have a better sense of what crosses the established line into obscenity based on precedent. While there could still be debate in marginal cases, the term obscenity provides a more concrete starting point. This law provides more meaningful notice and lends itself less to totally arbitrary enforcement.
Related Concepts
Are fighting words protected speech?
Are profane and indecent speech protected?
Can government speech be challenged?
How do you analyze a free speech issue?
Is anonymous speech protected?
Is discretion allowed in determining fees for public demonstrations?
Is speech protected when it incites illegal activity?
May the government seize assets of businesses that violate obscenity laws?
What are content-based restrictions, and which level of scrutiny is applied?
What are designated public forums?
What are limited public forums?
What are non-public forums?
What are prior restraints and when are they valid?
What are public forums?
What are the limits of free speech during a broadcast?
What does the 1st Amendment prohibit, and how is it applied?
What is the 1st Amendment right to access private property for speech?
What is the constitutionality of laws prohibiting group discrimination?
What level of scrutiny is applied to content-based restrictions on public forums?
What level of scrutiny is applied to court orders suppressing speech?
What level of scrutiny is applied to laws impacting freedom of association?
What level of scrutiny is applied to laws that require disclosure of group membership?
What rights do the press have in addition to those granted to private citizens?
When are obscenities and sexually oriented speech considered obscene?
When are time, place, and manner restrictions on speech valid?
When is a law unconstitutionally overbroad?
When is commercial speech protected, and when is it not?
When is speech by government employees not protected?
When may a private figure recover for defamation if there is no matter of public concern?
When may a private figure recover for defamation regarding a matter of public concern?
When may a public official or figure recover for defamation?
When may the government ban child pornography?
When may the government burden lawful, non-misleading, non-fraudulent commercial speech?
When may the government punish or limit news reporting?
When may the government punish private possession of obscene materials?
When may the government regulate symbolic speech?
When may the government require a license for speech?
When may the government use zoning ordinances to regulate adult businesses?
Which level of scrutiny is applied to content-neutral restrictions?
