What Due Process of Law Means
"No person shall...be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process
of law," according to the due process clause. The Fifth Amendment's due
process clause covers federal offenses and federal criminal prosecutions. The
Fourteenth Amendment, which ensures due process of law in state criminal
prosecutions, is a mirror image of the federal due process clause. The
constitutions of the majority of states contain a similar clause.Missouri
Constitution, Article I, Section 10,
www.sos.mo.gov/pubs/missouri_constitution.pdf, retrieved October 10, 2010.
People are shielded from an unjustifiable deprivation of substantive rights, like
the freedom of speech and the right to privacy, by substantive due process.
People are shielded from criminal punishment without warning or a chance to
be heard by procedural due process. Due process, both substantive and
procedural, guarantees that people are not arbitrarily deprived of their property
(forfeiture), liberty (incarceration), or life (capital punishment).
An Illustration of a Statute Void for Vagueness
A law that makes "inappropriate attire on public beaches" illegal is passed by
the state legislature. Because Larry, a law enforcement officer, believes that
women should only wear one-piece bathing suits, he arrests Kathy for wearing
two. Two days later, Sarah is arrested by Burt, another police officer, for
wearing a one-piece bathing suit at the beach. Burt believes that women should
not be seen in bathing suits in public. Sarah and Kathy may challenge the statute
on its face and argue that it is ambiguous. The definition of "inappropriate" is
ambiguous and can vary from person to person. As a result, it gives law
enforcement excessive discretion, is applied unevenly, and fails to adequately
inform Kathy, Sarah, and the general public of what conduct is illegal.
An Illustration of an Unconstitutional Riot Incitement Statute
In order to accomplish industrial or political reform, Ohio passed a law that
made it illegal to "advocate[ing]...the duty, necessity, or propriety of crime,
sabotage, violence, or unlawful methods of terrorism" and to "voluntarily
assembl[e] with any society, group, or assemblage of persons formed to teach or
advocate the doctrines of criminal syndicalism" (Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §
2923.13). A Ku Klux Klan leader was found guilty under the statute after
footage of him presiding over a KKK gathering was shown in the media.
"Therefore, we are faced with a statute that, by its own language and as applied,
purports to punish mere advocacy and to forbid, on pain of criminal
punishment, assembly with others merely to advocate the described type of
action," the US Supreme Court ruled [Footnote 4]. A law like that is prohibited
by the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
An Illustration of a Statute Void for Vagueness
A law that makes "inappropriate attire on public beaches" illegal is passed by
the state legislature. Because Larry, a law enforcement officer, believes that
women should only wear one-piece bathing suits, he arrests Kathy for wearing
two. Two days later, Sarah is arrested by Burt, another police officer, for
wearing a one-piece bathing suit at the beach. Burt believes that women should
not be seen in bathing suits in public. Sarah and Kathy may challenge the statute
on its face and argue that it is ambiguous. The definition of "inappropriate" is
ambiguous and can vary from person to person. As a result, it gives law
enforcement excessive discretion, is applied unevenly, and fails to adequately
inform Kathy, Sarah, and the general public of what conduct is illegal.
An Illustration of an Unconstitutional Riot Incitement Statute
In order to accomplish industrial or political reform, Ohio passed a law that
made it illegal to "advocate[ing]...the duty, necessity, or propriety of crime,
sabotage, violence, or unlawful methods of terrorism" and to "voluntarily
assembl[e] with any society, group, or assemblage of persons formed to teach or
advocate the doctrines of criminal syndicalism" (Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §
2923.13). A Ku Klux Klan leader was found guilty under the statute after
footage of him presiding over a KKK gathering was shown in the media.
"Therefore, we are faced with a statute that, by its own language and as applied,
purports to punish mere advocacy and to forbid, on pain of criminal
punishment, assembly with others merely to advocate the described type of
action," the US Supreme Court ruled [Footnote 4]. A law like that is prohibited
by the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
An Illustration of a Statute Void for Vagueness
A law that makes "inappropriate attire on public beaches" illegal is passed by
the state legislature. Because Larry, a law enforcement officer, believes that
women should only wear one-piece bathing suits, he arrests Kathy for wearing
two. Two days later, Sarah is arrested by Burt, another police officer, for
wearing a one-piece bathing suit at the beach. Burt believes that women should
not be seen in bathing suits in public. Sarah and Kathy may challenge the statute
on its face and argue that it is ambiguous. The definition of "inappropriate" is
ambiguous and can vary from person to person. As a result, it gives law
enforcement excessive discretion, is applied unevenly, and fails to adequately
inform Kathy, Sarah, and the general public of what conduct is illegal.
An Illustration of an Unconstitutional Riot Incitement Statute
In order to accomplish industrial or political reform, Ohio passed a law that
made it illegal to "advocate[ing]...the duty, necessity, or propriety of crime,
sabotage, violence, or unlawful methods of terrorism" and to "voluntarily
assembl[e] with any society, group, or assemblage of persons formed to teach or
advocate the doctrines of criminal syndicalism" (Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §
2923.13). A Ku Klux Klan leader was found guilty under the statute after
footage of him presiding over a KKK gathering was shown in the media.
"Therefore, we are faced with a statute that, by its own language and as applied,
purports to punish mere advocacy and to forbid, on pain of criminal
punishment, assembly with others merely to advocate the described type of
action," the US Supreme Court ruled [Footnote 4]. A law like that is prohibited
by the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
An Illustration of a Statute Void for Vagueness
A law that makes "inappropriate attire on public beaches" illegal is passed by
the state legislature. Because Larry, a law enforcement officer, believes that
women should only wear one-piece bathing suits, he arrests Kathy for wearing
two. Two days later, Sarah is arrested by Burt, another police officer, for
wearing a one-piece bathing suit at the beach. Burt believes that women should
not be seen in bathing suits in public. Sarah and Kathy may challenge the statute
on its face and argue that it is ambiguous. The definition of "inappropriate" is
ambiguous and can vary from person to person. As a result, it gives law
enforcement excessive discretion, is applied unevenly, and fails to adequately
inform Kathy, Sarah, and the general public of what conduct is illegal.
An Illustration of an Unconstitutional Riot Incitement Statute
In order to accomplish industrial or political reform, Ohio passed a law that
made it illegal to "advocate[ing]...the duty, necessity, or propriety of crime,
sabotage, violence, or unlawful methods of terrorism" and to "voluntarily
assembl[e] with any society, group, or assemblage of persons formed to teach or
advocate the doctrines of criminal syndicalism" (Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §
2923.13). A Ku Klux Klan leader was found guilty under the statute after
footage of him presiding over a KKK gathering was shown in the media.
"Therefore, we are faced with a statute that, by its own language and as applied,
purports to punish mere advocacy and to forbid, on pain of criminal
punishment, assembly with others merely to advocate the described type of
action," the US Supreme Court ruled [Footnote 4]. A law like that is prohibited
by the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
An Illustration of a Statute Void for Vagueness
A law that makes "inappropriate attire on public beaches" illegal is passed by
the state legislature. Because Larry, a law enforcement officer, believes that
women should only wear one-piece bathing suits, he arrests Kathy for wearing
two. Two days later, Sarah is arrested by Burt, another police officer, for
wearing a one-piece bathing suit at the beach. Burt believes that women should
not be seen in bathing suits in public. Sarah and Kathy may challenge the statute
on its face and argue that it is ambiguous. The definition of "inappropriate" is
ambiguous and can vary from person to person. As a result, it gives law
enforcement excessive discretion, is applied unevenly, and fails to adequately
inform Kathy, Sarah, and the general public of what conduct is illegal.
An Illustration of an Unconstitutional Riot Incitement Statute
In order to accomplish industrial or political reform, Ohio passed a law that
made it illegal to "advocate[ing]...the duty, necessity, or propriety of crime,
sabotage, violence, or unlawful methods of terrorism" and to "voluntarily
assembl[e] with any society, group, or assemblage of persons formed to teach or
advocate the doctrines of criminal syndicalism" (Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §
2923.13). A Ku Klux Klan leader was found guilty under the statute after
footage of him presiding over a KKK gathering was shown in the media.
"Therefore, we are faced with a statute that, by its own language and as applied,
purports to punish mere advocacy and to forbid, on pain of criminal
punishment, assembly with others merely to advocate the described type of
action," the US Supreme Court ruled [Footnote 4]. A law like that is prohibited
by the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
An Illustration of a Statute Void for Vagueness
A law that makes "inappropriate attire on public beaches" illegal is passed by
the state legislature. Because Larry, a law enforcement officer, believes that
women should only wear one-piece bathing suits, he arrests Kathy for wearing
two. Two days later, Sarah is arrested by Burt, another police officer, for
wearing a one-piece bathing suit at the beach. Burt believes that women should
not be seen in bathing suits in public. Sarah and Kathy may challenge the statute
on its face and argue that it is ambiguous. The definition of "inappropriate" is
ambiguous and can vary from person to person. As a result, it gives law
enforcement excessive discretion, is applied unevenly, and fails to adequately
inform Kathy, Sarah, and the general public of what conduct is illegal.
An Illustration of an Unconstitutional Riot Incitement Statute
In order to accomplish industrial or political reform, Ohio passed a law that
made it illegal to "advocate[ing]...the duty, necessity, or propriety of crime,
sabotage, violence, or unlawful methods of terrorism" and to "voluntarily
assembl[e] with any society, group, or assemblage of persons formed to teach or
advocate the doctrines of criminal syndicalism" (Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §
2923.13). A Ku Klux Klan leader was found guilty under the statute after
footage of him presiding over a KKK gathering was shown in the media.
"Therefore, we are faced with a statute that, by its own language and as applied,
purports to punish mere advocacy and to forbid, on pain of criminal
punishment, assembly with others merely to advocate the described type of
action," the US Supreme Court ruled [Footnote 4]. A law like that is prohibited
by the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
An Illustration of a Statute Void for Vagueness
A law that makes "inappropriate attire on public beaches" illegal is passed by
the state legislature. Because Larry, a law enforcement officer, believes that
women should only wear one-piece bathing suits, he arrests Kathy for wearing
two. Two days later, Sarah is arrested by Burt, another police officer, for
wearing a one-piece bathing suit at the beach. Burt believes that women should
not be seen in bathing suits in public. Sarah and Kathy may challenge the statute
on its face and argue that it is ambiguous. The definition of "inappropriate" is
ambiguous and can vary from person to person. As a result, it gives law
enforcement excessive discretion, is applied unevenly, and fails to adequately
inform Kathy, Sarah, and the general public of what conduct is illegal.
An Illustration of an Unconstitutional Riot Incitement Statute
In order to accomplish industrial or political reform, Ohio passed a law that
made it illegal to "advocate[ing]...the duty, necessity, or propriety of crime,
sabotage, violence, or unlawful methods of terrorism" and to "voluntarily
assembl[e] with any society, group, or assemblage of persons formed to teach or
advocate the doctrines of criminal syndicalism" (Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §
2923.13). A Ku Klux Klan leader was found guilty under the statute after
footage of him presiding over a KKK gathering was shown in the media.
"Therefore, we are faced with a statute that, by its own language and as applied,
purports to punish mere advocacy and to forbid, on pain of criminal
punishment, assembly with others merely to advocate the described type of
action," the US Supreme Court ruled [Footnote 4]. A law like that is prohibited
by the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
An Illustration of a Statute Void for Vagueness
A law that makes "inappropriate attire on public beaches" illegal is passed by
the state legislature. Because Larry, a law enforcement officer, believes that
women should only wear one-piece bathing suits, he arrests Kathy for wearing
two. Two days later, Sarah is arrested by Burt, another police officer, for
wearing a one-piece bathing suit at the beach. Burt believes that women should
not be seen in bathing suits in public. Sarah and Kathy may challenge the statute
on its face and argue that it is ambiguous. The definition of "inappropriate" is
ambiguous and can vary from person to person. As a result, it gives law
enforcement excessive discretion, is applied unevenly, and fails to adequately
inform Kathy, Sarah, and the general public of what conduct is illegal.
An Illustration of an Unconstitutional Riot Incitement Statute
In order to accomplish industrial or political reform, Ohio passed a law that
made it illegal to "advocate[ing]...the duty, necessity, or propriety of crime,
sabotage, violence, or unlawful methods of terrorism" and to "voluntarily
assembl[e] with any society, group, or assemblage of persons formed to teach or
advocate the doctrines of criminal syndicalism" (Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §
2923.13). A Ku Klux Klan leader was found guilty under the statute after
footage of him presiding over a KKK gathering was shown in the media.
"Therefore, we are faced with a statute that, by its own language and as applied,
purports to punish mere advocacy and to forbid, on pain of criminal
punishment, assembly with others merely to advocate the described type of
action," the US Supreme Court ruled [Footnote 4]. A law like that is prohibited
by the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
An Illustration of a Statute Void for Vagueness
A law that makes "inappropriate attire on public beaches" illegal is passed by
the state legislature. Because Larry, a law enforcement officer, believes that
women should only wear one-piece bathing suits, he arrests Kathy for wearing
two. Two days later, Sarah is arrested by Burt, another police officer, for
wearing a one-piece bathing suit at the beach. Burt believes that women should
not be seen in bathing suits in public. Sarah and Kathy may challenge the statute
on its face and argue that it is ambiguous. The definition of "inappropriate" is
ambiguous and can vary from person to person. As a result, it gives law
enforcement excessive discretion, is applied unevenly, and fails to adequately
inform Kathy, Sarah, and the general public of what conduct is illegal.
An Illustration of an Unconstitutional Riot Incitement Statute
In order to accomplish industrial or political reform, Ohio passed a law that
made it illegal to "advocate[ing]...the duty, necessity, or propriety of crime,
sabotage, violence, or unlawful methods of terrorism" and to "voluntarily
assembl[e] with any society, group, or assemblage of persons formed to teach or
advocate the doctrines of criminal syndicalism" (Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §
2923.13). A Ku Klux Klan leader was found guilty under the statute after
footage of him presiding over a KKK gathering was shown in the media.
"Therefore, we are faced with a statute that, by its own language and as applied,
purports to punish mere advocacy and to forbid, on pain of criminal
punishment, assembly with others merely to advocate the described type of
action," the US Supreme Court ruled [Footnote 4]. A law like that is prohibited
by the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
An Illustration of a Statute Void for Vagueness
A law that makes "inappropriate attire on public beaches" illegal is passed by
the state legislature. Because Larry, a law enforcement officer, believes that
women should only wear one-piece bathing suits, he arrests Kathy for wearing
two. Two days later, Sarah is arrested by Burt, another police officer, for
wearing a one-piece bathing suit at the beach. Burt believes that women should
not be seen in bathing suits in public. Sarah and Kathy may challenge the statute
on its face and argue that it is ambiguous. The definition of "inappropriate" is
ambiguous and can vary from person to person. As a result, it gives law
enforcement excessive discretion, is applied unevenly, and fails to adequately
inform Kathy, Sarah, and the general public of what conduct is illegal.
An Illustration of an Unconstitutional Riot Incitement Statute
In order to accomplish industrial or political reform, Ohio passed a law that
made it illegal to "advocate[ing]...the duty, necessity, or propriety of crime,
sabotage, violence, or unlawful methods of terrorism" and to "voluntarily
assembl[e] with any society, group, or assemblage of persons formed to teach or
advocate the doctrines of criminal syndicalism" (Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §
2923.13). A Ku Klux Klan leader was found guilty under the statute after
footage of him presiding over a KKK gathering was shown in the media.
"Therefore, we are faced with a statute that, by its own language and as applied,
purports to punish mere advocacy and to forbid, on pain of criminal
punishment, assembly with others merely to advocate the described type of
action," the US Supreme Court ruled [Footnote 4]. A law like that is prohibited
by the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
An Illustration of a Statute Void for Vagueness
A law that makes "inappropriate attire on public beaches" illegal is passed by
the state legislature. Because Larry, a law enforcement officer, believes that
women should only wear one-piece bathing suits, he arrests Kathy for wearing
two. Two days later, Sarah is arrested by Burt, another police officer, for
wearing a one-piece bathing suit at the beach. Burt believes that women should
not be seen in bathing suits in public. Sarah and Kathy may challenge the statute
on its face and argue that it is ambiguous. The definition of "inappropriate" is
ambiguous and can vary from person to person. As a result, it gives law
enforcement excessive discretion, is applied unevenly, and fails to adequately
inform Kathy, Sarah, and the general public of what conduct is illegal.
An Illustration of an Unconstitutional Riot Incitement Statute
In order to accomplish industrial or political reform, Ohio passed a law that
made it illegal to "advocate[ing]...the duty, necessity, or propriety of crime,
sabotage, violence, or unlawful methods of terrorism" and to "voluntarily
assembl[e] with any society, group, or assemblage of persons formed to teach or
advocate the doctrines of criminal syndicalism" (Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §
2923.13). A Ku Klux Klan leader was found guilty under the statute after
footage of him presiding over a KKK gathering was shown in the media.
"Therefore, we are faced with a statute that, by its own language and as applied,
purports to punish mere advocacy and to forbid, on pain of criminal
punishment, assembly with others merely to advocate the described type of
action," the US Supreme Court ruled [Footnote 4]. A law like that is prohibited
by the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
An Illustration of a Statute Void for Vagueness
A law that makes "inappropriate attire on public beaches" illegal is passed by
the state legislature. Because Larry, a law enforcement officer, believes that
women should only wear one-piece bathing suits, he arrests Kathy for wearing
two. Two days later, Sarah is arrested by Burt, another police officer, for
wearing a one-piece bathing suit at the beach. Burt believes that women should
not be seen in bathing suits in public. Sarah and Kathy may challenge the statute
on its face and argue that it is ambiguous. The definition of "inappropriate" is
ambiguous and can vary from person to person. As a result, it gives law
enforcement excessive discretion, is applied unevenly, and fails to adequately
inform Kathy, Sarah, and the general public of what conduct is illegal.
An Illustration of an Unconstitutional Riot Incitement Statute
In order to accomplish industrial or political reform, Ohio passed a law that
made it illegal to "advocate[ing]...the duty, necessity, or propriety of crime,
sabotage, violence, or unlawful methods of terrorism" and to "voluntarily
assembl[e] with any society, group, or assemblage of persons formed to teach or
advocate the doctrines of criminal syndicalism" (Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §
2923.13). A Ku Klux Klan leader was found guilty under the statute after
footage of him presiding over a KKK gathering was shown in the media.
"Therefore, we are faced with a statute that, by its own language and as applied,
purports to punish mere advocacy and to forbid, on pain of criminal
punishment, assembly with others merely to advocate the described type of
action," the US Supreme Court ruled [Footnote 4]. A law like that is prohibited
by the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
An Illustration of a Statute Void for Vagueness
A law that makes "inappropriate attire on public beaches" illegal is passed by
the state legislature. Because Larry, a law enforcement officer, believes that
women should only wear one-piece bathing suits, he arrests Kathy for wearing
two. Two days later, Sarah is arrested by Burt, another police officer, for
wearing a one-piece bathing suit at the beach. Burt believes that women should
not be seen in bathing suits in public. Sarah and Kathy may challenge the statute
on its face and argue that it is ambiguous. The definition of "inappropriate" is
ambiguous and can vary from person to person. As a result, it gives law
enforcement excessive discretion, is applied unevenly, and fails to adequately
inform Kathy, Sarah, and the general public of what conduct is illegal.
An Illustration of an Unconstitutional Riot Incitement Statute
In order to accomplish industrial or political reform, Ohio passed a law that
made it illegal to "advocate[ing]...the duty, necessity, or propriety of crime,
sabotage, violence, or unlawful methods of terrorism" and to "voluntarily
assembl[e] with any society, group, or assemblage of persons formed to teach or
advocate the doctrines of criminal syndicalism" (Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §
2923.13). A Ku Klux Klan leader was found guilty under the statute after
footage of him presiding over a KKK gathering was shown in the media.
"Therefore, we are faced with a statute that, by its own language and as applied,
purports to punish mere advocacy and to forbid, on pain of criminal
punishment, assembly with others merely to advocate the described type of
action," the US Supreme Court ruled [Footnote 4]. A law like that is prohibited
by the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
An Illustration of a Statute Void for Vagueness
A law that makes "inappropriate attire on public beaches" illegal is passed by
the state legislature. Because Larry, a law enforcement officer, believes that
women should only wear one-piece bathing suits, he arrests Kathy for wearing
two. Two days later, Sarah is arrested by Burt, another police officer, for
wearing a one-piece bathing suit at the beach. Burt believes that women should
not be seen in bathing suits in public. Sarah and Kathy may challenge the statute
on its face and argue that it is ambiguous. The definition of "inappropriate" is
ambiguous and can vary from person to person. As a result, it gives law
enforcement excessive discretion, is applied unevenly, and fails to adequately
inform Kathy, Sarah, and the general public of what conduct is illegal.
An Illustration of an Unconstitutional Riot Incitement Statute
In order to accomplish industrial or political reform, Ohio passed a law that
made it illegal to "advocate[ing]...the duty, necessity, or propriety of crime,
sabotage, violence, or unlawful methods of terrorism" and to "voluntarily
assembl[e] with any society, group, or assemblage of persons formed to teach or
advocate the doctrines of criminal syndicalism" (Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §
2923.13). A Ku Klux Klan leader was found guilty under the statute after
footage of him presiding over a KKK gathering was shown in the media.
"Therefore, we are faced with a statute that, by its own language and as applied,
purports to punish mere advocacy and to forbid, on pain of criminal
punishment, assembly with others merely to advocate the described type of
action," the US Supreme Court ruled [Footnote 4]. A law like that is prohibited
by the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
An Illustration of a Statute Void for Vagueness
A law that makes "inappropriate attire on public beaches" illegal is passed by
the state legislature. Because Larry, a law enforcement officer, believes that
women should only wear one-piece bathing suits, he arrests Kathy for wearing
two. Two days later, Sarah is arrested by Burt, another police officer, for
wearing a one-piece bathing suit at the beach. Burt believes that women should
not be seen in bathing suits in public. Sarah and Kathy may challenge the statute
on its face and argue that it is ambiguous. The definition of "inappropriate" is
ambiguous and can vary from person to person. As a result, it gives law
enforcement excessive discretion, is applied unevenly, and fails to adequately
inform Kathy, Sarah, and the general public of what conduct is illegal.
An Illustration of an Unconstitutional Riot Incitement Statute
In order to accomplish industrial or political reform, Ohio passed a law that
made it illegal to "advocate[ing]...the duty, necessity, or propriety of crime,
sabotage, violence, or unlawful methods of terrorism" and to "voluntarily
assembl[e] with any society, group, or assemblage of persons formed to teach or
advocate the doctrines of criminal syndicalism" (Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §
2923.13). A Ku Klux Klan leader was found guilty under the statute after
footage of him presiding over a KKK gathering was shown in the media.
"Therefore, we are faced with a statute that, by its own language and as applied,
purports to punish mere advocacy and to forbid, on pain of criminal
punishment, assembly with others merely to advocate the described type of
action," the US Supreme Court ruled [Footnote 4]. A law like that is prohibited
by the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
An Illustration of a Statute Void for Vagueness
A law that makes "inappropriate attire on public beaches" illegal is passed by
the state legislature. Because Larry, a law enforcement officer, believes that
women should only wear one-piece bathing suits, he arrests Kathy for wearing
two. Two days later, Sarah is arrested by Burt, another police officer, for
wearing a one-piece bathing suit at the beach. Burt believes that women should
not be seen in bathing suits in public. Sarah and Kathy may challenge the statute
on its face and argue that it is ambiguous. The definition of "inappropriate" is
ambiguous and can vary from person to person. As a result, it gives law
enforcement excessive discretion, is applied unevenly, and fails to adequately
inform Kathy, Sarah, and the general public of what conduct is illegal.
An Illustration of an Unconstitutional Riot Incitement Statute
In order to accomplish industrial or political reform, Ohio passed a law that
made it illegal to "advocate[ing]...the duty, necessity, or propriety of crime,
sabotage, violence, or unlawful methods of terrorism" and to "voluntarily
assembl[e] with any society, group, or assemblage of persons formed to teach or
advocate the doctrines of criminal syndicalism" (Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §
2923.13). A Ku Klux Klan leader was found guilty under the statute after
footage of him presiding over a KKK gathering was shown in the media.
"Therefore, we are faced with a statute that, by its own language and as applied,
purports to punish mere advocacy and to forbid, on pain of criminal
punishment, assembly with others merely to advocate the described type of
action," the US Supreme Court ruled [Footnote 4]. A law like that is prohibited
by the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
An Illustration of a Statute Void for Vagueness
A law that makes "inappropriate attire on public beaches" illegal is passed by
the state legislature. Because Larry, a law enforcement officer, believes that
women should only wear one-piece bathing suits, he arrests Kathy for wearing
two. Two days later, Sarah is arrested by Burt, another police officer, for
wearing a one-piece bathing suit at the beach. Burt believes that women should
not be seen in bathing suits in public. Sarah and Kathy may challenge the statute
on its face and argue that it is ambiguous. The definition of "inappropriate" is
ambiguous and can vary from person to person. As a result, it gives law
enforcement excessive discretion, is applied unevenly, and fails to adequately
inform Kathy, Sarah, and the general public of what conduct is illegal.
An Illustration of an Unconstitutional Riot Incitement Statute
In order to accomplish industrial or political reform, Ohio passed a law that
made it illegal to "advocate[ing]...the duty, necessity, or propriety of crime,
sabotage, violence, or unlawful methods of terrorism" and to "voluntarily
assembl[e] with any society, group, or assemblage of persons formed to teach or
advocate the doctrines of criminal syndicalism" (Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §
2923.13). A Ku Klux Klan leader was found guilty under the statute after
footage of him presiding over a KKK gathering was shown in the media.
"Therefore, we are faced with a statute that, by its own language and as applied,
purports to punish mere advocacy and to forbid, on pain of criminal
punishment, assembly with others merely to advocate the described type of
action," the US Supreme Court ruled [Footnote 4]. A law like that is prohibited
by the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
An Illustration of a Statute Void for Vagueness
A law that makes "inappropriate attire on public beaches" illegal is passed by
the state legislature. Because Larry, a law enforcement officer, believes that
women should only wear one-piece bathing suits, he arrests Kathy for wearing
two. Two days later, Sarah is arrested by Burt, another police officer, for
wearing a one-piece bathing suit at the beach. Burt believes that women should
not be seen in bathing suits in public. Sarah and Kathy may challenge the statute
on its face and argue that it is ambiguous. The definition of "inappropriate" is
ambiguous and can vary from person to person. As a result, it gives law
enforcement excessive discretion, is applied unevenly, and fails to adequately
inform Kathy, Sarah, and the general public of what conduct is illegal.
An Illustration of an Unconstitutional Riot Incitement Statute
In order to accomplish industrial or political reform, Ohio passed a law that
made it illegal to "advocate[ing]...the duty, necessity, or propriety of crime,
sabotage, violence, or unlawful methods of terrorism" and to "voluntarily
assembl[e] with any society, group, or assemblage of persons formed to teach or
advocate the doctrines of criminal syndicalism" (Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §
2923.13). A Ku Klux Klan leader was found guilty under the statute after
footage of him presiding over a KKK gathering was shown in the media.
"Therefore, we are faced with a statute that, by its own language and as applied,
purports to punish mere advocacy and to forbid, on pain of criminal
punishment, assembly with others merely to advocate the described type of
action," the US Supreme Court ruled [Footnote 4]. A law like that is prohibited
by the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
An Illustration of a Statute Void for Vagueness
A law that makes "inappropriate attire on public beaches" illegal is passed by
the state legislature. Because Larry, a law enforcement officer, believes that
women should only wear one-piece bathing suits, he arrests Kathy for wearing
two. Two days later, Sarah is arrested by Burt, another police officer, for
wearing a one-piece bathing suit at the beach. Burt believes that women should
not be seen in bathing suits in public. Sarah and Kathy may challenge the statute
on its face and argue that it is ambiguous. The definition of "inappropriate" is
ambiguous and can vary from person to person. As a result, it gives law
enforcement excessive discretion, is applied unevenly, and fails to adequately
inform Kathy, Sarah, and the general public of what conduct is illegal.
An Illustration of an Unconstitutional Riot Incitement Statute
In order to accomplish industrial or political reform, Ohio passed a law that
made it illegal to "advocate[ing]...the duty, necessity, or propriety of crime,
sabotage, violence, or unlawful methods of terrorism" and to "voluntarily
assembl[e] with any society, group, or assemblage of persons formed to teach or
advocate the doctrines of criminal syndicalism" (Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §
2923.13). A Ku Klux Klan leader was found guilty under the statute after
footage of him presiding over a KKK gathering was shown in the media.
"Therefore, we are faced with a statute that, by its own language and as applied,
purports to punish mere advocacy and to forbid, on pain of criminal
punishment, assembly with others merely to advocate the described type of
action," the US Supreme Court ruled [Footnote 4]. A law like that is prohibited
by the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
An Illustration of a Statute Void for Vagueness
A law that makes "inappropriate attire on public beaches" illegal is passed by
the state legislature. Because Larry, a law enforcement officer, believes that
women should only wear one-piece bathing suits, he arrests Kathy for wearing
two. Two days later, Sarah is arrested by Burt, another police officer, for
wearing a one-piece bathing suit at the beach. Burt believes that women should
not be seen in bathing suits in public. Sarah and Kathy may challenge the statute
on its face and argue that it is ambiguous. The definition of "inappropriate" is
ambiguous and can vary from person to person. As a result, it gives law
enforcement excessive discretion, is applied unevenly, and fails to adequately
inform Kathy, Sarah, and the general public of what conduct is illegal.
An Illustration of an Unconstitutional Riot Incitement Statute
In order to accomplish industrial or political reform, Ohio passed a law that
made it illegal to "advocate[ing]...the duty, necessity, or propriety of crime,
sabotage, violence, or unlawful methods of terrorism" and to "voluntarily
assembl[e] with any society, group, or assemblage of persons formed to teach or
advocate the doctrines of criminal syndicalism" (Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §
2923.13). A Ku Klux Klan leader was found guilty under the statute after
footage of him presiding over a KKK gathering was shown in the media.
"Therefore, we are faced with a statute that, by its own language and as applied,
purports to punish mere advocacy and to forbid, on pain of criminal
punishment, assembly with others merely to advocate the described type of
action," the US Supreme Court ruled [Footnote 4]. A law like that is prohibited
by the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
An Illustration of a Statute Void for Vagueness
A law that makes "inappropriate attire on public beaches" illegal is passed by
the state legislature. Because Larry, a law enforcement officer, believes that
women should only wear one-piece bathing suits, he arrests Kathy for wearing
two. Two days later, Sarah is arrested by Burt, another police officer, for
wearing a one-piece bathing suit at the beach. Burt believes that women should
not be seen in bathing suits in public. Sarah and Kathy may challenge the statute
on its face and argue that it is ambiguous. The definition of "inappropriate" is
ambiguous and can vary from person to person. As a result, it gives law
enforcement excessive discretion, is applied unevenly, and fails to adequately
inform Kathy, Sarah, and the general public of what conduct is illegal.
An Illustration of an Unconstitutional Riot Incitement Statute
In order to accomplish industrial or political reform, Ohio passed a law that
made it illegal to "advocate[ing]...the duty, necessity, or propriety of crime,
sabotage, violence, or unlawful methods of terrorism" and to "voluntarily
assembl[e] with any society, group, or assemblage of persons formed to teach or
advocate the doctrines of criminal syndicalism" (Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §
2923.13). A Ku Klux Klan leader was found guilty under the statute after
footage of him presiding over a KKK gathering was shown in the media.
"Therefore, we are faced with a statute that, by its own language and as applied,
purports to punish mere advocacy and to forbid, on pain of criminal
punishment, assembly with others merely to advocate the described type of
action," the US Supreme Court ruled [Footnote 4]. A law like that is prohibited
by the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
An Illustration of a Statute Void for Vagueness
A law that makes "inappropriate attire on public beaches" illegal is passed by
the state legislature. Because Larry, a law enforcement officer, believes that
women should only wear one-piece bathing suits, he arrests Kathy for wearing
two. Two days later, Sarah is arrested by Burt, another police officer, for
wearing a one-piece bathing suit at the beach. Burt believes that women should
not be seen in bathing suits in public. Sarah and Kathy may challenge the statute
on its face and argue that it is ambiguous. The definition of "inappropriate" is
ambiguous and can vary from person to person. As a result, it gives law
enforcement excessive discretion, is applied unevenly, and fails to adequately
inform Kathy, Sarah, and the general public of what conduct is illegal.
An Illustration of an Unconstitutional Riot Incitement Statute
In order to accomplish industrial or political reform, Ohio passed a law that
made it illegal to "advocate[ing]...the duty, necessity, or propriety of crime,
sabotage, violence, or unlawful methods of terrorism" and to "voluntarily
assembl[e] with any society, group, or assemblage of persons formed to teach or
advocate the doctrines of criminal syndicalism" (Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §
2923.13). A Ku Klux Klan leader was found guilty under the statute after
footage of him presiding over a KKK gathering was shown in the media.
"Therefore, we are faced with a statute that, by its own language and as applied,
purports to punish mere advocacy and to forbid, on pain of criminal
punishment, assembly with others merely to advocate the described type of
action," the US Supreme Court ruled [Footnote 4]. A law like that is prohibited
by the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
An Illustration of a Statute Void for Vagueness
A law that makes "inappropriate attire on public beaches" illegal is passed by
the state legislature. Because Larry, a law enforcement officer, believes that
women should only wear one-piece bathing suits, he arrests Kathy for wearing
two. Two days later, Sarah is arrested by Burt, another police officer, for
wearing a one-piece bathing suit at the beach. Burt believes that women should
not be seen in bathing suits in public. Sarah and Kathy may challenge the statute
on its face and argue that it is ambiguous. The definition of "inappropriate" is
ambiguous and can vary from person to person. As a result, it gives law
enforcement excessive discretion, is applied unevenly, and fails to adequately
inform Kathy, Sarah, and the general public of what conduct is illegal.
An Illustration of an Unconstitutional Riot Incitement Statute
In order to accomplish industrial or political reform, Ohio passed a law that
made it illegal to "advocate[ing]...the duty, necessity, or propriety of crime,
sabotage, violence, or unlawful methods of terrorism" and to "voluntarily
assembl[e] with any society, group, or assemblage of persons formed to teach or
advocate the doctrines of criminal syndicalism" (Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §
2923.13). A Ku Klux Klan leader was found guilty under the statute after
footage of him presiding over a KKK gathering was shown in the media.
"Therefore, we are faced with a statute that, by its own language and as applied,
purports to punish mere advocacy and to forbid, on pain of criminal
punishment, assembly with others merely to advocate the described type of
action," the US Supreme Court ruled [Footnote 4]. A law like that is prohibited
by the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
An Illustration of a Statute Void for Vagueness
A law that makes "inappropriate attire on public beaches" illegal is passed by
the state legislature. Because Larry, a law enforcement officer, believes that
women should only wear one-piece bathing suits, he arrests Kathy for wearing
two. Two days later, Sarah is arrested by Burt, another police officer, for
wearing a one-piece bathing suit at the beach. Burt believes that women should
not be seen in bathing suits in public. Sarah and Kathy may challenge the statute
on its face and argue that it is ambiguous. The definition of "inappropriate" is
ambiguous and can vary from person to person. As a result, it gives law
enforcement excessive discretion, is applied unevenly, and fails to adequately
inform Kathy, Sarah, and the general public of what conduct is illegal.
An Illustration of an Unconstitutional Riot Incitement Statute
In order to accomplish industrial or political reform, Ohio passed a law that
made it illegal to "advocate[ing]...the duty, necessity, or propriety of crime,
sabotage, violence, or unlawful methods of terrorism" and to "voluntarily
assembl[e] with any society, group, or assemblage of persons formed to teach or
advocate the doctrines of criminal syndicalism" (Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §
2923.13). A Ku Klux Klan leader was found guilty under the statute after
footage of him presiding over a KKK gathering was shown in the media.
"Therefore, we are faced with a statute that, by its own language and as applied,
purports to punish mere advocacy and to forbid, on pain of criminal
punishment, assembly with others merely to advocate the described type of
action," the US Supreme Court ruled [Footnote 4]. A law like that is prohibited
by the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
An Illustration of a Statute Void for Vagueness
A law that makes "inappropriate attire on public beaches" illegal is passed by
the state legislature. Because Larry, a law enforcement officer, believes that
women should only wear one-piece bathing suits, he arrests Kathy for wearing
two. Two days later, Sarah is arrested by Burt, another police officer, for
wearing a one-piece bathing suit at the beach. Burt believes that women should
not be seen in bathing suits in public. Sarah and Kathy may challenge the statute
on its face and argue that it is ambiguous. The definition of "inappropriate" is
ambiguous and can vary from person to person. As a result, it gives law
enforcement excessive discretion, is applied unevenly, and fails to adequately
inform Kathy, Sarah, and the general public of what conduct is illegal.
An Illustration of an Unconstitutional Riot Incitement Statute
In order to accomplish industrial or political reform, Ohio passed a law that
made it illegal to "advocate[ing]...the duty, necessity, or propriety of crime,
sabotage, violence, or unlawful methods of terrorism" and to "voluntarily
assembl[e] with any society, group, or assemblage of persons formed to teach or
advocate the doctrines of criminal syndicalism" (Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §
2923.13). A Ku Klux Klan leader was found guilty under the statute after
footage of him presiding over a KKK gathering was shown in the media.
"Therefore, we are faced with a statute that, by its own language and as applied,
purports to punish mere advocacy and to forbid, on pain of criminal
punishment, assembly with others merely to advocate the described type of
action," the US Supreme Court ruled [Footnote 4]. A law like that is prohibited
by the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
An Illustration of a Statute Void for Vagueness
A law that makes "inappropriate attire on public beaches" illegal is passed by
the state legislature. Because Larry, a law enforcement officer, believes that
women should only wear one-piece bathing suits, he arrests Kathy for wearing
two. Two days later, Sarah is arrested by Burt, another police officer, for
wearing a one-piece bathing suit at the beach. Burt believes that women should
not be seen in bathing suits in public. Sarah and Kathy may challenge the statute
on its face and argue that it is ambiguous. The definition of "inappropriate" is
ambiguous and can vary from person to person. As a result, it gives law
enforcement excessive discretion, is applied unevenly, and fails to adequately
inform Kathy, Sarah, and the general public of what conduct is illegal.
An Illustration of an Unconstitutional Riot Incitement Statute
In order to accomplish industrial or political reform, Ohio passed a law that
made it illegal to "advocate[ing]...the duty, necessity, or propriety of crime,
sabotage, violence, or unlawful methods of terrorism" and to "voluntarily
assembl[e] with any society, group, or assemblage of persons formed to teach or
advocate the doctrines of criminal syndicalism" (Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §
2923.13). A Ku Klux Klan leader was found guilty under the statute after
footage of him presiding over a KKK gathering was shown in the media.
"Therefore, we are faced with a statute that, by its own language and as applied,
purports to punish mere advocacy and to forbid, on pain of criminal
punishment, assembly with others merely to advocate the described type of
action," the US Supreme Court ruled [Footnote 4]. A law like that is prohibited
by the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
An Illustration of a Statute Void for Vagueness
A law that makes "inappropriate attire on public beaches" illegal is passed by
the state legislature. Because Larry, a law enforcement officer, believes that
women should only wear one-piece bathing suits, he arrests Kathy for wearing
two. Two days later, Sarah is arrested by Burt, another police officer, for
wearing a one-piece bathing suit at the beach. Burt believes that women should
not be seen in bathing suits in public. Sarah and Kathy may challenge the statute
on its face and argue that it is ambiguous. The definition of "inappropriate" is
ambiguous and can vary from person to person. As a result, it gives law
enforcement excessive discretion, is applied unevenly, and fails to adequately
inform Kathy, Sarah, and the general public of what conduct is illegal.
An Illustration of an Unconstitutional Riot Incitement Statute
In order to accomplish industrial or political reform, Ohio passed a law that
made it illegal to "advocate[ing]...the duty, necessity, or propriety of crime,
sabotage, violence, or unlawful methods of terrorism" and to "voluntarily
assembl[e] with any society, group, or assemblage of persons formed to teach or
advocate the doctrines of criminal syndicalism" (Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §
2923.13). A Ku Klux Klan leader was found guilty under the statute after
footage of him presiding over a KKK gathering was shown in the media.
"Therefore, we are faced with a statute that, by its own language and as applied,
purports to punish mere advocacy and to forbid, on pain of criminal
punishment, assembly with others merely to advocate the described type of
action," the US Supreme Court ruled [Footnote 4]. A law like that is prohibited
by the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
An Illustration of a Statute Void for Vagueness
A law that makes "inappropriate attire on public beaches" illegal is passed by
the state legislature. Because Larry, a law enforcement officer, believes that
women should only wear one-piece bathing suits, he arrests Kathy for wearing
two. Two days later, Sarah is arrested by Burt, another police officer, for
wearing a one-piece bathing suit at the beach. Burt believes that women should
not be seen in bathing suits in public. Sarah and Kathy may challenge the statute
on its face and argue that it is ambiguous. The definition of "inappropriate" is
ambiguous and can vary from person to person. As a result, it gives law
enforcement excessive discretion, is applied unevenly, and fails to adequately
inform Kathy, Sarah, and the general public of what conduct is illegal.
An Illustration of an Unconstitutional Riot Incitement Statute
In order to accomplish industrial or political reform, Ohio passed a law that
made it illegal to "advocate[ing]...the duty, necessity, or propriety of crime,
sabotage, violence, or unlawful methods of terrorism" and to "voluntarily
assembl[e] with any society, group, or assemblage of persons formed to teach or
advocate the doctrines of criminal syndicalism" (Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §
2923.13). A Ku Klux Klan leader was found guilty under the statute after
footage of him presiding over a KKK gathering was shown in the media.
"Therefore, we are faced with a statute that, by its own language and as applied,
purports to punish mere advocacy and to forbid, on pain of criminal
punishment, assembly with others merely to advocate the described type of
action," the US Supreme Court ruled [Footnote 4]. A law like that is prohibited
by the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
An Illustration of a Statute Void for Vagueness
A law that makes "inappropriate attire on public beaches" illegal is passed by
the state legislature. Because Larry, a law enforcement officer, believes that
women should only wear one-piece bathing suits, he arrests Kathy for wearing
two. Two days later, Sarah is arrested by Burt, another police officer, for
wearing a one-piece bathing suit at the beach. Burt believes that women should
not be seen in bathing suits in public. Sarah and Kathy may challenge the statute
on its face and argue that it is ambiguous. The definition of "inappropriate" is
ambiguous and can vary from person to person. As a result, it gives law
enforcement excessive discretion, is applied unevenly, and fails to adequately
inform Kathy, Sarah, and the general public of what conduct is illegal.
An Illustration of an Unconstitutional Riot Incitement Statute
In order to accomplish industrial or political reform, Ohio passed a law that
made it illegal to "advocate[ing]...the duty, necessity, or propriety of crime,
sabotage, violence, or unlawful methods of terrorism" and to "voluntarily
assembl[e] with any society, group, or assemblage of persons formed to teach or
advocate the doctrines of criminal syndicalism" (Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §
2923.13). A Ku Klux Klan leader was found guilty under the statute after
footage of him presiding over a KKK gathering was shown in the media.
"Therefore, we are faced with a statute that, by its own language and as applied,
purports to punish mere advocacy and to forbid, on pain of criminal
punishment, assembly with others merely to advocate the described type of
action," the US Supreme Court ruled [Footnote 4]. A law like that is prohibited
by the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
An Illustration of a Statute Void for Vagueness
A law that makes "inappropriate attire on public beaches" illegal is passed by
the state legislature. Because Larry, a law enforcement officer, believes that
women should only wear one-piece bathing suits, he arrests Kathy for wearing
two. Two days later, Sarah is arrested by Burt, another police officer, for
wearing a one-piece bathing suit at the beach. Burt believes that women should
not be seen in bathing suits in public. Sarah and Kathy may challenge the statute
on its face and argue that it is ambiguous. The definition of "inappropriate" is
ambiguous and can vary from person to person. As a result, it gives law
enforcement excessive discretion, is applied unevenly, and fails to adequately
inform Kathy, Sarah, and the general public of what conduct is illegal.
An Illustration of an Unconstitutional Riot Incitement Statute
In order to accomplish industrial or political reform, Ohio passed a law that
made it illegal to "advocate[ing]...the duty, necessity, or propriety of crime,
sabotage, violence, or unlawful methods of terrorism" and to "voluntarily
assembl[e] with any society, group, or assemblage of persons formed to teach or
advocate the doctrines of criminal syndicalism" (Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §
2923.13). A Ku Klux Klan leader was found guilty under the statute after
footage of him presiding over a KKK gathering was shown in the media.
"Therefore, we are faced with a statute that, by its own language and as applied,
purports to punish mere advocacy and to forbid, on pain of criminal
punishment, assembly with others merely to advocate the described type of
action," the US Supreme Court ruled [Footnote 4]. A law like that is prohibited
by the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
An Illustration of a Statute Void for Vagueness
A law that makes "inappropriate attire on public beaches" illegal is passed by
the state legislature. Because Larry, a law enforcement officer, believes that
women should only wear one-piece bathing suits, he arrests Kathy for wearing
two. Two days later, Sarah is arrested by Burt, another police officer, for
wearing a one-piece bathing suit at the beach. Burt believes that women should
not be seen in bathing suits in public. Sarah and Kathy may challenge the statute
on its face and argue that it is ambiguous. The definition of "inappropriate" is
ambiguous and can vary from person to person. As a result, it gives law
enforcement excessive discretion, is applied unevenly, and fails to adequately
inform Kathy, Sarah, and the general public of what conduct is illegal.
An Illustration of an Unconstitutional Riot Incitement Statute
In order to accomplish industrial or political reform, Ohio passed a law that
made it illegal to "advocate[ing]...the duty, necessity, or propriety of crime,
sabotage, violence, or unlawful methods of terrorism" and to "voluntarily
assembl[e] with any society, group, or assemblage of persons formed to teach or
advocate the doctrines of criminal syndicalism" (Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §
2923.13). A Ku Klux Klan leader was found guilty under the statute after
footage of him presiding over a KKK gathering was shown in the media.
"Therefore, we are faced with a statute that, by its own language and as applied,
purports to punish mere advocacy and to forbid, on pain of criminal
punishment, assembly with others merely to advocate the described type of
action," the US Supreme Court ruled [Footnote 4]. A law like that is prohibited
by the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
An Illustration of a Statute Void for Vagueness
A law that makes "inappropriate attire on public beaches" illegal is passed by
the state legislature. Because Larry, a law enforcement officer, believes that
women should only wear one-piece bathing suits, he arrests Kathy for wearing
two. Two days later, Sarah is arrested by Burt, another police officer, for
wearing a one-piece bathing suit at the beach. Burt believes that women should
not be seen in bathing suits in public. Sarah and Kathy may challenge the statute
on its face and argue that it is ambiguous. The definition of "inappropriate" is
ambiguous and can vary from person to person. As a result, it gives law
enforcement excessive discretion, is applied unevenly, and fails to adequately
inform Kathy, Sarah, and the general public of what conduct is illegal.
An Illustration of an Unconstitutional Riot Incitement Statute
In order to accomplish industrial or political reform, Ohio passed a law that
made it illegal to "advocate[ing]...the duty, necessity, or propriety of crime,
sabotage, violence, or unlawful methods of terrorism" and to "voluntarily
assembl[e] with any society, group, or assemblage of persons formed to teach or
advocate the doctrines of criminal syndicalism" (Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §
2923.13). A Ku Klux Klan leader was found guilty under the statute after
footage of him presiding over a KKK gathering was shown in the media.
"Therefore, we are faced with a statute that, by its own language and as applied,
purports to punish mere advocacy and to forbid, on pain of criminal
punishment, assembly with others merely to advocate the described type of
action," the US Supreme Court ruled [Footnote 4]. A law like that is prohibited
by the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
An Illustration of a Statute Void for Vagueness
A law that makes "inappropriate attire on public beaches" illegal is passed by
the state legislature. Because Larry, a law enforcement officer, believes that
women should only wear one-piece bathing suits, he arrests Kathy for wearing
two. Two days later, Sarah is arrested by Burt, another police officer, for
wearing a one-piece bathing suit at the beach. Burt believes that women should
not be seen in bathing suits in public. Sarah and Kathy may challenge the statute
on its face and argue that it is ambiguous. The definition of "inappropriate" is
ambiguous and can vary from person to person. As a result, it gives law
enforcement excessive discretion, is applied unevenly, and fails to adequately
inform Kathy, Sarah, and the general public of what conduct is illegal.
An Illustration of an Unconstitutional Riot Incitement Statute
In order to accomplish industrial or political reform, Ohio passed a law that
made it illegal to "advocate[ing]...the duty, necessity, or propriety of crime,
sabotage, violence, or unlawful methods of terrorism" and to "voluntarily
assembl[e] with any society, group, or assemblage of persons formed to teach or
advocate the doctrines of criminal syndicalism" (Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §
2923.13). A Ku Klux Klan leader was found guilty under the statute after
footage of him presiding over a KKK gathering was shown in the media.
"Therefore, we are faced with a statute that, by its own language and as applied,
purports to punish mere advocacy and to forbid, on pain of criminal
punishment, assembly with others merely to advocate the described type of
action," the US Supreme Court ruled [Footnote 4]. A law like that is prohibited
by the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
An Illustration of a Statute Void for Vagueness
A law that makes "inappropriate attire on public beaches" illegal is passed by
the state legislature. Because Larry, a law enforcement officer, believes that
women should only wear one-piece bathing suits, he arrests Kathy for wearing
two. Two days later, Sarah is arrested by Burt, another police officer, for
wearing a one-piece bathing suit at the beach. Burt believes that women should
not be seen in bathing suits in public. Sarah and Kathy may challenge the statute
on its face and argue that it is ambiguous. The definition of "inappropriate" is
ambiguous and can vary from person to person. As a result, it gives law
enforcement excessive discretion, is applied unevenly, and fails to adequately
inform Kathy, Sarah, and the general public of what conduct is illegal.
An Illustration of an Unconstitutional Riot Incitement Statute
In order to accomplish industrial or political reform, Ohio passed a law that
made it illegal to "advocate[ing]...the duty, necessity, or propriety of crime,
sabotage, violence, or unlawful methods of terrorism" and to "voluntarily
assembl[e] with any society, group, or assemblage of persons formed to teach or
advocate the doctrines of criminal syndicalism" (Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §
2923.13). A Ku Klux Klan leader was found guilty under the statute after
footage of him presiding over a KKK gathering was shown in the media.
"Therefore, we are faced with a statute that, by its own language and as applied,
purports to punish mere advocacy and to forbid, on pain of criminal
punishment, assembly with others merely to advocate the described type of
action," the US Supreme Court ruled [Footnote 4]. A law like that is prohibited
by the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
An Illustration of a Statute Void for Vagueness
A law that makes "inappropriate attire on public beaches" illegal is passed by
the state legislature. Because Larry, a law enforcement officer, believes that
women should only wear one-piece bathing suits, he arrests Kathy for wearing
two. Two days later, Sarah is arrested by Burt, another police officer, for
wearing a one-piece bathing suit at the beach. Burt believes that women should
not be seen in bathing suits in public. Sarah and Kathy may challenge the statute
on its face and argue that it is ambiguous. The definition of "inappropriate" is
ambiguous and can vary from person to person. As a result, it gives law
enforcement excessive discretion, is applied unevenly, and fails to adequately
inform Kathy, Sarah, and the general public of what conduct is illegal.
An Illustration of an Unconstitutional Riot Incitement Statute
In order to accomplish industrial or political reform, Ohio passed a law that
made it illegal to "advocate[ing]...the duty, necessity, or propriety of crime,
sabotage, violence, or unlawful methods of terrorism" and to "voluntarily
assembl[e] with any society, group, or assemblage of persons formed to teach or
advocate the doctrines of criminal syndicalism" (Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §
2923.13). A Ku Klux Klan leader was found guilty under the statute after
footage of him presiding over a KKK gathering was shown in the media.
"Therefore, we are faced with a statute that, by its own language and as applied,
purports to punish mere advocacy and to forbid, on pain of criminal
punishment, assembly with others merely to advocate the described type of
action," the US Supreme Court ruled [Footnote 4]. A law like that is prohibited
by the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
An Illustration of a Statute Void for Vagueness
A law that makes "inappropriate attire on public beaches" illegal is passed by
the state legislature. Because Larry, a law enforcement officer, believes that
women should only wear one-piece bathing suits, he arrests Kathy for wearing
two. Two days later, Sarah is arrested by Burt, another police officer, for
wearing a one-piece bathing suit at the beach. Burt believes that women should
not be seen in bathing suits in public. Sarah and Kathy may challenge the statute
on its face and argue that it is ambiguous. The definition of "inappropriate" is
ambiguous and can vary from person to person. As a result, it gives law
enforcement excessive discretion, is applied unevenly, and fails to adequately
inform Kathy, Sarah, and the general public of what conduct is illegal.
An Illustration of an Unconstitutional Riot Incitement Statute
In order to accomplish industrial or political reform, Ohio passed a law that
made it illegal to "advocate[ing]...the duty, necessity, or propriety of crime,
sabotage, violence, or unlawful methods of terrorism" and to "voluntarily
assembl[e] with any society, group, or assemblage of persons formed to teach or
advocate the doctrines of criminal syndicalism" (Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §
2923.13). A Ku Klux Klan leader was found guilty under the statute after
footage of him presiding over a KKK gathering was shown in the media.
"Therefore, we are faced with a statute that, by its own language and as applied,
purports to punish mere advocacy and to forbid, on pain of criminal
punishment, assembly with others merely to advocate the described type of
action," the US Supreme Court ruled [Footnote 4]. A law like that is prohibited
by the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
An Illustration of a Statute Void for Vagueness
A law that makes "inappropriate attire on public beaches" illegal is passed by
the state legislature. Because Larry, a law enforcement officer, believes that
women should only wear one-piece bathing suits, he arrests Kathy for wearing
two. Two days later, Sarah is arrested by Burt, another police officer, for
wearing a one-piece bathing suit at the beach. Burt believes that women should
not be seen in bathing suits in public. Sarah and Kathy may challenge the statute
on its face and argue that it is ambiguous. The definition of "inappropriate" is
ambiguous and can vary from person to person. As a result, it gives law
enforcement excessive discretion, is applied unevenly, and fails to adequately
inform Kathy, Sarah, and the general public of what conduct is illegal.
An Illustration of an Unconstitutional Riot Incitement Statute
In order to accomplish industrial or political reform, Ohio passed a law that
made it illegal to "advocate[ing]...the duty, necessity, or propriety of crime,
sabotage, violence, or unlawful methods of terrorism" and to "voluntarily
assembl[e] with any society, group, or assemblage of persons formed to teach or
advocate the doctrines of criminal syndicalism" (Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §
2923.13). A Ku Klux Klan leader was found guilty under the statute after
footage of him presiding over a KKK gathering was shown in the media.
"Therefore, we are faced with a statute that, by its own language and as applied,
purports to punish mere advocacy and to forbid, on pain of criminal
punishment, assembly with others merely to advocate the described type of
action," the US Supreme Court ruled [Footnote 4]. A law like that is prohibited
by the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
An Illustration of a Statute Void for Vagueness
A law that makes "inappropriate attire on public beaches" illegal is passed by
the state legislature. Because Larry, a law enforcement officer, believes that
women should only wear one-piece bathing suits, he arrests Kathy for wearing
two. Two days later, Sarah is arrested by Burt, another police officer, for
wearing a one-piece bathing suit at the beach. Burt believes that women should
not be seen in bathing suits in public. Sarah and Kathy may challenge the statute
on its face and argue that it is ambiguous. The definition of "inappropriate" is
ambiguous and can vary from person to person. As a result, it gives law
enforcement excessive discretion, is applied unevenly, and fails to adequately
inform Kathy, Sarah, and the general public of what conduct is illegal.
An Illustration of an Unconstitutional Riot Incitement Statute
In order to accomplish industrial or political reform, Ohio passed a law that
made it illegal to "advocate[ing]...the duty, necessity, or propriety of crime,
sabotage, violence, or unlawful methods of terrorism" and to "voluntarily
assembl[e] with any society, group, or assemblage of persons formed to teach or
advocate the doctrines of criminal syndicalism" (Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §
2923.13). A Ku Klux Klan leader was found guilty under the statute after
footage of him presiding over a KKK gathering was shown in the media.
"Therefore, we are faced with a statute that, by its own language and as applied,
purports to punish mere advocacy and to forbid, on pain of criminal
punishment, assembly with others merely to advocate the described type of
action," the US Supreme Court ruled [Footnote 4]. A law like that is prohibited
by the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
An Illustration of a Statute Void for Vagueness
A law that makes "inappropriate attire on public beaches" illegal is passed by
the state legislature. Because Larry, a law enforcement officer, believes that
women should only wear one-piece bathing suits, he arrests Kathy for wearing
two. Two days later, Sarah is arrested by Burt, another police officer, for
wearing a one-piece bathing suit at the beach. Burt believes that women should
not be seen in bathing suits in public. Sarah and Kathy may challenge the statute
on its face and argue that it is ambiguous. The definition of "inappropriate" is
ambiguous and can vary from person to person. As a result, it gives law
enforcement excessive discretion, is applied unevenly, and fails to adequately
inform Kathy, Sarah, and the general public of what conduct is illegal.
An Illustration of an Unconstitutional Riot Incitement Statute
In order to accomplish industrial or political reform, Ohio passed a law that
made it illegal to "advocate[ing]...the duty, necessity, or propriety of crime,
sabotage, violence, or unlawful methods of terrorism" and to "voluntarily
assembl[e] with any society, group, or assemblage of persons formed to teach or
advocate the doctrines of criminal syndicalism" (Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §
2923.13). A Ku Klux Klan leader was found guilty under the statute after
footage of him presiding over a KKK gathering was shown in the media.
"Therefore, we are faced with a statute that, by its own language and as applied,
purports to punish mere advocacy and to forbid, on pain of criminal
punishment, assembly with others merely to advocate the described type of
action," the US Supreme Court ruled [Footnote 4]. A law like that is prohibited
by the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
An Illustration of a Statute Void for Vagueness
A law that makes "inappropriate attire on public beaches" illegal is passed by
the state legislature. Because Larry, a law enforcement officer, believes that
women should only wear one-piece bathing suits, he arrests Kathy for wearing
two. Two days later, Sarah is arrested by Burt, another police officer, for
wearing a one-piece bathing suit at the beach. Burt believes that women should
not be seen in bathing suits in public. Sarah and Kathy may challenge the statute
on its face and argue that it is ambiguous. The definition of "inappropriate" is
ambiguous and can vary from person to person. As a result, it gives law
enforcement excessive discretion, is applied unevenly, and fails to adequately
inform Kathy, Sarah, and the general public of what conduct is illegal.
An Illustration of an Unconstitutional Riot Incitement Statute
In order to accomplish industrial or political reform, Ohio passed a law that
made it illegal to "advocate[ing]...the duty, necessity, or propriety of crime,
sabotage, violence, or unlawful methods of terrorism" and to "voluntarily
assembl[e] with any society, group, or assemblage of persons formed to teach or
advocate the doctrines of criminal syndicalism" (Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §
2923.13). A Ku Klux Klan leader was found guilty under the statute after
footage of him presiding over a KKK gathering was shown in the media.
"Therefore, we are faced with a statute that, by its own language and as applied,
purports to punish mere advocacy and to forbid, on pain of criminal
punishment, assembly with others merely to advocate the described type of
action," the US Supreme Court ruled [Footnote 4]. A law like that is prohibited
by the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
An Illustration of a Statute Void for Vagueness
A law that makes "inappropriate attire on public beaches" illegal is passed by
the state legislature. Because Larry, a law enforcement officer, believes that
women should only wear one-piece bathing suits, he arrests Kathy for wearing
two. Two days later, Sarah is arrested by Burt, another police officer, for
wearing a one-piece bathing suit at the beach. Burt believes that women should
not be seen in bathing suits in public. Sarah and Kathy may challenge the statute
on its face and argue that it is ambiguous. The definition of "inappropriate" is
ambiguous and can vary from person to person. As a result, it gives law
enforcement excessive discretion, is applied unevenly, and fails to adequately
inform Kathy, Sarah, and the general public of what conduct is illegal.
An Illustration of an Unconstitutional Riot Incitement Statute
In order to accomplish industrial or political reform, Ohio passed a law that
made it illegal to "advocate[ing]...the duty, necessity, or propriety of crime,
sabotage, violence, or unlawful methods of terrorism" and to "voluntarily
assembl[e] with any society, group, or assemblage of persons formed to teach or
advocate the doctrines of criminal syndicalism" (Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §
2923.13). A Ku Klux Klan leader was found guilty under the statute after
footage of him presiding over a KKK gathering was shown in the media.
"Therefore, we are faced with a statute that, by its own language and as applied,
purports to punish mere advocacy and to forbid, on pain of criminal
punishment, assembly with others merely to advocate the described type of
action," the US Supreme Court ruled [Footnote 4]. A law like that is prohibited
by the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
An Illustration of a Statute Void for Vagueness
A law that makes "inappropriate attire on public beaches" illegal is passed by
the state legislature. Because Larry, a law enforcement officer, believes that
women should only wear one-piece bathing suits, he arrests Kathy for wearing
two. Two days later, Sarah is arrested by Burt, another police officer, for
wearing a one-piece bathing suit at the beach. Burt believes that women should
not be seen in bathing suits in public. Sarah and Kathy may challenge the statute
on its face and argue that it is ambiguous. The definition of "inappropriate" is
ambiguous and can vary from person to person. As a result, it gives law
enforcement excessive discretion, is applied unevenly, and fails to adequately
inform Kathy, Sarah, and the general public of what conduct is illegal.
An Illustration of an Unconstitutional Riot Incitement Statute
In order to accomplish industrial or political reform, Ohio passed a law that
made it illegal to "advocate[ing]...the duty, necessity, or propriety of crime,
sabotage, violence, or unlawful methods of terrorism" and to "voluntarily
assembl[e] with any society, group, or assemblage of persons formed to teach or
advocate the doctrines of criminal syndicalism" (Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §
2923.13). A Ku Klux Klan leader was found guilty under the statute after
footage of him presiding over a KKK gathering was shown in the media.
"Therefore, we are faced with a statute that, by its own language and as applied,
purports to punish mere advocacy and to forbid, on pain of criminal
punishment, assembly with others merely to advocate the described type of
action," the US Supreme Court ruled [Footnote 4]. A law like that is prohibited
by the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
An Illustration of a Statute Void for Vagueness
A law that makes "inappropriate attire on public beaches" illegal is passed by
the state legislature. Because Larry, a law enforcement officer, believes that
women should only wear one-piece bathing suits, he arrests Kathy for wearing
two. Two days later, Sarah is arrested by Burt, another police officer, for
wearing a one-piece bathing suit at the beach. Burt believes that women should
not be seen in bathing suits in public. Sarah and Kathy may challenge the statute
on its face and argue that it is ambiguous. The definition of "inappropriate" is
ambiguous and can vary from person to person. As a result, it gives law
enforcement excessive discretion, is applied unevenly, and fails to adequately
inform Kathy, Sarah, and the general public of what conduct is illegal.
An Illustration of an Unconstitutional Riot Incitement Statute
In order to accomplish industrial or political reform, Ohio passed a law that
made it illegal to "advocate[ing]...the duty, necessity, or propriety of crime,
sabotage, violence, or unlawful methods of terrorism" and to "voluntarily
assembl[e] with any society, group, or assemblage of persons formed to teach or
advocate the doctrines of criminal syndicalism" (Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §
2923.13). A Ku Klux Klan leader was found guilty under the statute after
footage of him presiding over a KKK gathering was shown in the media.
"Therefore, we are faced with a statute that, by its own language and as applied,
purports to punish mere advocacy and to forbid, on pain of criminal
punishment, assembly with others merely to advocate the described type of
action," the US Supreme Court ruled [Footnote 4]. A law like that is prohibited
by the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
An Illustration of a Statute Void for Vagueness
A law that makes "inappropriate attire on public beaches" illegal is passed by
the state legislature. Because Larry, a law enforcement officer, believes that
women should only wear one-piece bathing suits, he arrests Kathy for wearing
two. Two days later, Sarah is arrested by Burt, another police officer, for
wearing a one-piece bathing suit at the beach. Burt believes that women should
not be seen in bathing suits in public. Sarah and Kathy may challenge the statute
on its face and argue that it is ambiguous. The definition of "inappropriate" is
ambiguous and can vary from person to person. As a result, it gives law
enforcement excessive discretion, is applied unevenly, and fails to adequately
inform Kathy, Sarah, and the general public of what conduct is illegal.
An Illustration of an Unconstitutional Riot Incitement Statute
In order to accomplish industrial or political reform, Ohio passed a law that
made it illegal to "advocate[ing]...the duty, necessity, or propriety of crime,
sabotage, violence, or unlawful methods of terrorism" and to "voluntarily
assembl[e] with any society, group, or assemblage of persons formed to teach or
advocate the doctrines of criminal syndicalism" (Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §
2923.13). A Ku Klux Klan leader was found guilty under the statute after
footage of him presiding over a KKK gathering was shown in the media.
"Therefore, we are faced with a statute that, by its own language and as applied,
purports to punish mere advocacy and to forbid, on pain of criminal
punishment, assembly with others merely to advocate the described type of
action," the US Supreme Court ruled [Footnote 4]. A law like that is prohibited
by the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
An Illustration of a Statute Void for Vagueness
A law that makes "inappropriate attire on public beaches" illegal is passed by
the state legislature. Because Larry, a law enforcement officer, believes that
women should only wear one-piece bathing suits, he arrests Kathy for wearing
two. Two days later, Sarah is arrested by Burt, another police officer, for
wearing a one-piece bathing suit at the beach. Burt believes that women should
not be seen in bathing suits in public. Sarah and Kathy may challenge the statute
on its face and argue that it is ambiguous. The definition of "inappropriate" is
ambiguous and can vary from person to person. As a result, it gives law
enforcement excessive discretion, is applied unevenly, and fails to adequately
inform Kathy, Sarah, and the general public of what conduct is illegal.
An Illustration of an Unconstitutional Riot Incitement Statute
In order to accomplish industrial or political reform, Ohio passed a law that
made it illegal to "advocate[ing]...the duty, necessity, or propriety of crime,
sabotage, violence, or unlawful methods of terrorism" and to "voluntarily
assembl[e] with any society, group, or assemblage of persons formed to teach or
advocate the doctrines of criminal syndicalism" (Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §
2923.13). A Ku Klux Klan leader was found guilty under the statute after
footage of him presiding over a KKK gathering was shown in the media.
"Therefore, we are faced with a statute that, by its own language and as applied,
purports to punish mere advocacy and to forbid, on pain of criminal
punishment, assembly with others merely to advocate the described type of
action," the US Supreme Court ruled [Footnote 4]. A law like that is prohibited
by the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
An Illustration of a Statute Void for Vagueness
A law that makes "inappropriate attire on public beaches" illegal is passed by
the state legislature. Because Larry, a law enforcement officer, believes that
women should only wear one-piece bathing suits, he arrests Kathy for wearing
two. Two days later, Sarah is arrested by Burt, another police officer, for
wearing a one-piece bathing suit at the beach. Burt believes that women should
not be seen in bathing suits in public. Sarah and Kathy may challenge the statute
on its face and argue that it is ambiguous. The definition of "inappropriate" is
ambiguous and can vary from person to person. As a result, it gives law
enforcement excessive discretion, is applied unevenly, and fails to adequately
inform Kathy, Sarah, and the general public of what conduct is illegal.
An Illustration of an Unconstitutional Riot Incitement Statute
In order to accomplish industrial or political reform, Ohio passed a law that
made it illegal to "advocate[ing]...the duty, necessity, or propriety of crime,
sabotage, violence, or unlawful methods of terrorism" and to "voluntarily
assembl[e] with any society, group, or assemblage of persons formed to teach or
advocate the doctrines of criminal syndicalism" (Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §
2923.13). A Ku Klux Klan leader was found guilty under the statute after
footage of him presiding over a KKK gathering was shown in the media.
"Therefore, we are faced with a statute that, by its own language and as applied,
purports to punish mere advocacy and to forbid, on pain of criminal
punishment, assembly with others merely to advocate the described type of
action," the US Supreme Court ruled [Footnote 4]. A law like that is prohibited
by the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
An Illustration of a Statute Void for Vagueness
A law that makes "inappropriate attire on public beaches" illegal is passed by
the state legislature. Because Larry, a law enforcement officer, believes that
women should only wear one-piece bathing suits, he arrests Kathy for wearing
two. Two days later, Sarah is arrested by Burt, another police officer, for
wearing a one-piece bathing suit at the beach. Burt believes that women should
not be seen in bathing suits in public. Sarah and Kathy may challenge the statute
on its face and argue that it is ambiguous. The definition of "inappropriate" is
ambiguous and can vary from person to person. As a result, it gives law
enforcement excessive discretion, is applied unevenly, and fails to adequately
inform Kathy, Sarah, and the general public of what conduct is illegal.
An Illustration of an Unconstitutional Riot Incitement Statute
In order to accomplish industrial or political reform, Ohio passed a law that
made it illegal to "advocate[ing]...the duty, necessity, or propriety of crime,
sabotage, violence, or unlawful methods of terrorism" and to "voluntarily
assembl[e] with any society, group, or assemblage of persons formed to teach or
advocate the doctrines of criminal syndicalism" (Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §
2923.13). A Ku Klux Klan leader was found guilty under the statute after
footage of him presiding over a KKK gathering was shown in the media.
"Therefore, we are faced with a statute that, by its own language and as applied,
purports to punish mere advocacy and to forbid, on pain of criminal
punishment, assembly with others merely to advocate the described type of
action," the US Supreme Court ruled [Footnote 4]. A law like that is prohibited
by the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
An Illustration of a Statute Void for Vagueness
A law that makes "inappropriate attire on public beaches" illegal is passed by
the state legislature. Because Larry, a law enforcement officer, believes that
women should only wear one-piece bathing suits, he arrests Kathy for wearing
two. Two days later, Sarah is arrested by Burt, another police officer, for
wearing a one-piece bathing suit at the beach. Burt believes that women should
not be seen in bathing suits in public. Sarah and Kathy may challenge the statute
on its face and argue that it is ambiguous. The definition of "inappropriate" is
ambiguous and can vary from person to person. As a result, it gives law
enforcement excessive discretion, is applied unevenly, and fails to adequately
inform Kathy, Sarah, and the general public of what conduct is illegal.
An Illustration of an Unconstitutional Riot Incitement Statute
In order to accomplish industrial or political reform, Ohio passed a law that
made it illegal to "advocate[ing]...the duty, necessity, or propriety of crime,
sabotage, violence, or unlawful methods of terrorism" and to "voluntarily
assembl[e] with any society, group, or assemblage of persons formed to teach or
advocate the doctrines of criminal syndicalism" (Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §
2923.13). A Ku Klux Klan leader was found guilty under the statute after
footage of him presiding over a KKK gathering was shown in the media.
"Therefore, we are faced with a statute that, by its own language and as applied,
purports to punish mere advocacy and to forbid, on pain of criminal
punishment, assembly with others merely to advocate the described type of
action," the US Supreme Court ruled [Footnote 4]. A law like that is prohibited
by the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
An Illustration of a Statute Void for Vagueness
A law that makes "inappropriate attire on public beaches" illegal is passed by
the state legislature. Because Larry, a law enforcement officer, believes that
women should only wear one-piece bathing suits, he arrests Kathy for wearing
two. Two days later, Sarah is arrested by Burt, another police officer, for
wearing a one-piece bathing suit at the beach. Burt believes that women should
not be seen in bathing suits in public. Sarah and Kathy may challenge the statute
on its face and argue that it is ambiguous. The definition of "inappropriate" is
ambiguous and can vary from person to person. As a result, it gives law
enforcement excessive discretion, is applied unevenly, and fails to adequately
inform Kathy, Sarah, and the general public of what conduct is illegal.
An Illustration of an Unconstitutional Riot Incitement Statute
In order to accomplish industrial or political reform, Ohio passed a law that
made it illegal to "advocate[ing]...the duty, necessity, or propriety of crime,
sabotage, violence, or unlawful methods of terrorism" and to "voluntarily
assembl[e] with any society, group, or assemblage of persons formed to teach or
advocate the doctrines of criminal syndicalism" (Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §
2923.13). A Ku Klux Klan leader was found guilty under the statute after
footage of him presiding over a KKK gathering was shown in the media.
"Therefore, we are faced with a statute that, by its own language and as applied,
purports to punish mere advocacy and to forbid, on pain of criminal
punishment, assembly with others merely to advocate the described type of
action," the US Supreme Court ruled [Footnote 4]. A law like that is prohibited
by the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
An Illustration of a Statute Void for Vagueness
A law that makes "inappropriate attire on public beaches" illegal is passed by
the state legislature. Because Larry, a law enforcement officer, believes that
women should only wear one-piece bathing suits, he arrests Kathy for wearing
two. Two days later, Sarah is arrested by Burt, another police officer, for
wearing a one-piece bathing suit at the beach. Burt believes that women should
not be seen in bathing suits in public. Sarah and Kathy may challenge the statute
on its face and argue that it is ambiguous. The definition of "inappropriate" is
ambiguous and can vary from person to person. As a result, it gives law
enforcement excessive discretion, is applied unevenly, and fails to adequately
inform Kathy, Sarah, and the general public of what conduct is illegal.
An Illustration of an Unconstitutional Riot Incitement Statute
In order to accomplish industrial or political reform, Ohio passed a law that
made it illegal to "advocate[ing]...the duty, necessity, or propriety of crime,
sabotage, violence, or unlawful methods of terrorism" and to "voluntarily
assembl[e] with any society, group, or assemblage of persons formed to teach or
advocate the doctrines of criminal syndicalism" (Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §
2923.13). A Ku Klux Klan leader was found guilty under the statute after
footage of him presiding over a KKK gathering was shown in the media.
"Therefore, we are faced with a statute that, by its own language and as applied,
purports to punish mere advocacy and to forbid, on pain of criminal
punishment, assembly with others merely to advocate the described type of
action," the US Supreme Court ruled [Footnote 4]. A law like that is prohibited
by the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
An Illustration of a Statute Void for Vagueness
A law that makes "inappropriate attire on public beaches" illegal is passed by
the state legislature. Because Larry, a law enforcement officer, believes that
women should only wear one-piece bathing suits, he arrests Kathy for wearing
two. Two days later, Sarah is arrested by Burt, another police officer, for
wearing a one-piece bathing suit at the beach. Burt believes that women should
not be seen in bathing suits in public. Sarah and Kathy may challenge the statute
on its face and argue that it is ambiguous. The definition of "inappropriate" is
ambiguous and can vary from person to person. As a result, it gives law
enforcement excessive discretion, is applied unevenly, and fails to adequately
inform Kathy, Sarah, and the general public of what conduct is illegal.
An Illustration of an Unconstitutional Riot Incitement Statute
In order to accomplish industrial or political reform, Ohio passed a law that
made it illegal to "advocate[ing]...the duty, necessity, or propriety of crime,
sabotage, violence, or unlawful methods of terrorism" and to "voluntarily
assembl[e] with any society, group, or assemblage of persons formed to teach or
advocate the doctrines of criminal syndicalism" (Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §
2923.13). A Ku Klux Klan leader was found guilty under the statute after
footage of him presiding over a KKK gathering was shown in the media.
"Therefore, we are faced with a statute that, by its own language and as applied,
purports to punish mere advocacy and to forbid, on pain of criminal
punishment, assembly with others merely to advocate the described type of
action," the US Supreme Court ruled [Footnote 4]. A law like that is prohibited
by the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
An Illustration of a Statute Void for Vagueness
A law that makes "inappropriate attire on public beaches" illegal is passed by
the state legislature. Because Larry, a law enforcement officer, believes that
women should only wear one-piece bathing suits, he arrests Kathy for wearing
two. Two days later, Sarah is arrested by Burt, another police officer, for
wearing a one-piece bathing suit at the beach. Burt believes that women should
not be seen in bathing suits in public. Sarah and Kathy may challenge the statute
on its face and argue that it is ambiguous. The definition of "inappropriate" is
ambiguous and can vary from person to person. As a result, it gives law
enforcement excessive discretion, is applied unevenly, and fails to adequately
inform Kathy, Sarah, and the general public of what conduct is illegal.
An Illustration of an Unconstitutional Riot Incitement Statute
In order to accomplish industrial or political reform, Ohio passed a law that
made it illegal to "advocate[ing]...the duty, necessity, or propriety of crime,
sabotage, violence, or unlawful methods of terrorism" and to "voluntarily
assembl[e] with any society, group, or assemblage of persons formed to teach or
advocate the doctrines of criminal syndicalism" (Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §
2923.13). A Ku Klux Klan leader was found guilty under the statute after
footage of him presiding over a KKK gathering was shown in the media.
"Therefore, we are faced with a statute that, by its own language and as applied,
purports to punish mere advocacy and to forbid, on pain of criminal
punishment, assembly with others merely to advocate the described type of
action," the US Supreme Court ruled [Footnote 4]. A law like that is prohibited
by the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
An Illustration of a Statute Void for Vagueness
A law that makes "inappropriate attire on public beaches" illegal is passed by
the state legislature. Because Larry, a law enforcement officer, believes that
women should only wear one-piece bathing suits, he arrests Kathy for wearing
two. Two days later, Sarah is arrested by Burt, another police officer, for
wearing a one-piece bathing suit at the beach. Burt believes that women should
not be seen in bathing suits in public. Sarah and Kathy may challenge the statute
on its face and argue that it is ambiguous. The definition of "inappropriate" is
ambiguous and can vary from person to person. As a result, it gives law
enforcement excessive discretion, is applied unevenly, and fails to adequately
inform Kathy, Sarah, and the general public of what conduct is illegal.
An Illustration of an Unconstitutional Riot Incitement Statute
In order to accomplish industrial or political reform, Ohio passed a law that
made it illegal to "advocate[ing]...the duty, necessity, or propriety of crime,
sabotage, violence, or unlawful methods of terrorism" and to "voluntarily
assembl[e] with any society, group, or assemblage of persons formed to teach or
advocate the doctrines of criminal syndicalism" (Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §
2923.13). A Ku Klux Klan leader was found guilty under the statute after
footage of him presiding over a KKK gathering was shown in the media.
"Therefore, we are faced with a statute that, by its own language and as applied,
purports to punish mere advocacy and to forbid, on pain of criminal
punishment, assembly with others merely to advocate the described type of
action," the US Supreme Court ruled [Footnote 4]. A law like that is prohibited
by the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
An Illustration of a Statute Void for Vagueness
A law that makes "inappropriate attire on public beaches" illegal is passed by
the state legislature. Because Larry, a law enforcement officer, believes that
women should only wear one-piece bathing suits, he arrests Kathy for wearing
two. Two days later, Sarah is arrested by Burt, another police officer, for
wearing a one-piece bathing suit at the beach. Burt believes that women should
not be seen in bathing suits in public. Sarah and Kathy may challenge the statute
on its face and argue that it is ambiguous. The definition of "inappropriate" is
ambiguous and can vary from person to person. As a result, it gives law
enforcement excessive discretion, is applied unevenly, and fails to adequately
inform Kathy, Sarah, and the general public of what conduct is illegal.
An Illustration of an Unconstitutional Riot Incitement Statute
In order to accomplish industrial or political reform, Ohio passed a law that
made it illegal to "advocate[ing]...the duty, necessity, or propriety of crime,
sabotage, violence, or unlawful methods of terrorism" and to "voluntarily
assembl[e] with any society, group, or assemblage of persons formed to teach or
advocate the doctrines of criminal syndicalism" (Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §
2923.13). A Ku Klux Klan leader was found guilty under the statute after
footage of him presiding over a KKK gathering was shown in the media.
"Therefore, we are faced with a statute that, by its own language and as applied,
purports to punish mere advocacy and to forbid, on pain of criminal
punishment, assembly with others merely to advocate the described type of
action," the US Supreme Court ruled [Footnote 4]. A law like that is prohibited
by the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
An Illustration of a Statute Void for Vagueness
A law that makes "inappropriate attire on public beaches" illegal is passed by
the state legislature. Because Larry, a law enforcement officer, believes that
women should only wear one-piece bathing suits, he arrests Kathy for wearing
two. Two days later, Sarah is arrested by Burt, another police officer, for
wearing a one-piece bathing suit at the beach. Burt believes that women should
not be seen in bathing suits in public. Sarah and Kathy may challenge the statute
on its face and argue that it is ambiguous. The definition of "inappropriate" is
ambiguous and can vary from person to person. As a result, it gives law
enforcement excessive discretion, is applied unevenly, and fails to adequately
inform Kathy, Sarah, and the general public of what conduct is illegal.
An Illustration of an Unconstitutional Riot Incitement Statute
In order to accomplish industrial or political reform, Ohio passed a law that
made it illegal to "advocate[ing]...the duty, necessity, or propriety of crime,
sabotage, violence, or unlawful methods of terrorism" and to "voluntarily
assembl[e] with any society, group, or assemblage of persons formed to teach or
advocate the doctrines of criminal syndicalism" (Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §
2923.13). A Ku Klux Klan leader was found guilty under the statute after
footage of him presiding over a KKK gathering was shown in the media.
"Therefore, we are faced with a statute that, by its own language and as applied,
purports to punish mere advocacy and to forbid, on pain of criminal
punishment, assembly with others merely to advocate the described type of
action," the US Supreme Court ruled [Footnote 4]. A law like that is prohibited
by the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
An Illustration of a Statute Void for Vagueness
A law that makes "inappropriate attire on public beaches" illegal is passed by
the state legislature. Because Larry, a law enforcement officer, believes that
women should only wear one-piece bathing suits, he arrests Kathy for wearing
two. Two days later, Sarah is arrested by Burt, another police officer, for
wearing a one-piece bathing suit at the beach. Burt believes that women should
not be seen in bathing suits in public. Sarah and Kathy may challenge the statute
on its face and argue that it is ambiguous. The definition of "inappropriate" is
ambiguous and can vary from person to person. As a result, it gives law
enforcement excessive discretion, is applied unevenly, and fails to adequately
inform Kathy, Sarah, and the general public of what conduct is illegal.
An Illustration of an Unconstitutional Riot Incitement Statute
In order to accomplish industrial or political reform, Ohio passed a law that
made it illegal to "advocate[ing]...the duty, necessity, or propriety of crime,
sabotage, violence, or unlawful methods of terrorism" and to "voluntarily
assembl[e] with any society, group, or assemblage of persons formed to teach or
advocate the doctrines of criminal syndicalism" (Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §
2923.13). A Ku Klux Klan leader was found guilty under the statute after
footage of him presiding over a KKK gathering was shown in the media.
"Therefore, we are faced with a statute that, by its own language and as applied,
purports to punish mere advocacy and to forbid, on pain of criminal
punishment, assembly with others merely to advocate the described type of
action," the US Supreme Court ruled [Footnote 4]. A law like that is prohibited
by the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
An Illustration of a Statute Void for Vagueness
A law that makes "inappropriate attire on public beaches" illegal is passed by
the state legislature. Because Larry, a law enforcement officer, believes that
women should only wear one-piece bathing suits, he arrests Kathy for wearing
two. Two days later, Sarah is arrested by Burt, another police officer, for
wearing a one-piece bathing suit at the beach. Burt believes that women should
not be seen in bathing suits in public. Sarah and Kathy may challenge the statute
on its face and argue that it is ambiguous. The definition of "inappropriate" is
ambiguous and can vary from person to person. As a result, it gives law
enforcement excessive discretion, is applied unevenly, and fails to adequately
inform Kathy, Sarah, and the general public of what conduct is illegal.
An Illustration of an Unconstitutional Riot Incitement Statute
In order to accomplish industrial or political reform, Ohio passed a law that
made it illegal to "advocate[ing]...the duty, necessity, or propriety of crime,
sabotage, violence, or unlawful methods of terrorism" and to "voluntarily
assembl[e] with any society, group, or assemblage of persons formed to teach or
advocate the doctrines of criminal syndicalism" (Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §
2923.13). A Ku Klux Klan leader was found guilty under the statute after
footage of him presiding over a KKK gathering was shown in the media.
"Therefore, we are faced with a statute that, by its own language and as applied,
purports to punish mere advocacy and to forbid, on pain of criminal
punishment, assembly with others merely to advocate the described type of
action," the US Supreme Court ruled [Footnote 4]. A law like that is prohibited
by the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
An Illustration of a Statute Void for Vagueness
A law that makes "inappropriate attire on public beaches" illegal is passed by
the state legislature. Because Larry, a law enforcement officer, believes that
women should only wear one-piece bathing suits, he arrests Kathy for wearing
two. Two days later, Sarah is arrested by Burt, another police officer, for
wearing a one-piece bathing suit at the beach. Burt believes that women should
not be seen in bathing suits in public. Sarah and Kathy may challenge the statute
on its face and argue that it is ambiguous. The definition of "inappropriate" is
ambiguous and can vary from person to person. As a result, it gives law
enforcement excessive discretion, is applied unevenly, and fails to adequately
inform Kathy, Sarah, and the general public of what conduct is illegal.
An Illustration of an Unconstitutional Riot Incitement Statute
In order to accomplish industrial or political reform, Ohio passed a law that
made it illegal to "advocate[ing]...the duty, necessity, or propriety of crime,
sabotage, violence, or unlawful methods of terrorism" and to "voluntarily
assembl[e] with any society, group, or assemblage of persons formed to teach or
advocate the doctrines of criminal syndicalism" (Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §
2923.13). A Ku Klux Klan leader was found guilty under the statute after
footage of him presiding over a KKK gathering was shown in the media.
"Therefore, we are faced with a statute that, by its own language and as applied,
purports to punish mere advocacy and to forbid, on pain of criminal
punishment, assembly with others merely to advocate the described type of
action," the US Supreme Court ruled [Footnote 4]. A law like that is prohibited
by the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
An Illustration of a Statute Void for Vagueness
A law that makes "inappropriate attire on public beaches" illegal is passed by
the state legislature. Because Larry, a law enforcement officer, believes that
women should only wear one-piece bathing suits, he arrests Kathy for wearing
two. Two days later, Sarah is arrested by Burt, another police officer, for
wearing a one-piece bathing suit at the beach. Burt believes that women should
not be seen in bathing suits in public. Sarah and Kathy may challenge the statute
on its face and argue that it is ambiguous. The definition of "inappropriate" is
ambiguous and can vary from person to person. As a result, it gives law
enforcement excessive discretion, is applied unevenly, and fails to adequately
inform Kathy, Sarah, and the general public of what conduct is illegal.
An Illustration of an Unconstitutional Riot Incitement Statute
In order to accomplish industrial or political reform, Ohio passed a law that
made it illegal to "advocate[ing]...the duty, necessity, or propriety of crime,
sabotage, violence, or unlawful methods of terrorism" and to "voluntarily
assembl[e] with any society, group, or assemblage of persons formed to teach or
advocate the doctrines of criminal syndicalism" (Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §
2923.13). A Ku Klux Klan leader was found guilty under the statute after
footage of him presiding over a KKK gathering was shown in the media.
"Therefore, we are faced with a statute that, by its own language and as applied,
purports to punish mere advocacy and to forbid, on pain of criminal
punishment, assembly with others merely to advocate the described type of
action," the US Supreme Court ruled [Footnote 4]. A law like that is prohibited
by the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
An Illustration of a Statute Void for Vagueness
A law that makes "inappropriate attire on public beaches" illegal is passed by
the state legislature. Because Larry, a law enforcement officer, believes that
women should only wear one-piece bathing suits, he arrests Kathy for wearing
two. Two days later, Sarah is arrested by Burt, another police officer, for
wearing a one-piece bathing suit at the beach. Burt believes that women should
not be seen in bathing suits in public. Sarah and Kathy may challenge the statute
on its face and argue that it is ambiguous. The definition of "inappropriate" is
ambiguous and can vary from person to person. As a result, it gives law
enforcement excessive discretion, is applied unevenly, and fails to adequately
inform Kathy, Sarah, and the general public of what conduct is illegal.
An Illustration of an Unconstitutional Riot Incitement Statute
In order to accomplish industrial or political reform, Ohio passed a law that
made it illegal to "advocate[ing]...the duty, necessity, or propriety of crime,
sabotage, violence, or unlawful methods of terrorism" and to "voluntarily
assembl[e] with any society, group, or assemblage of persons formed to teach or
advocate the doctrines of criminal syndicalism" (Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §
2923.13). A Ku Klux Klan leader was found guilty under the statute after
footage of him presiding over a KKK gathering was shown in the media.
"Therefore, we are faced with a statute that, by its own language and as applied,
purports to punish mere advocacy and to forbid, on pain of criminal
punishment, assembly with others merely to advocate the described type of
action," the US Supreme Court ruled [Footnote 4]. A law like that is prohibited
by the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
An Illustration of a Statute Void for Vagueness
A law that makes "inappropriate attire on public beaches" illegal is passed by
the state legislature. Because Larry, a law enforcement officer, believes that
women should only wear one-piece bathing suits, he arrests Kathy for wearing
two. Two days later, Sarah is arrested by Burt, another police officer, for
wearing a one-piece bathing suit at the beach. Burt believes that women should
not be seen in bathing suits in public. Sarah and Kathy may challenge the statute
on its face and argue that it is ambiguous. The definition of "inappropriate" is
ambiguous and can vary from person to person. As a result, it gives law
enforcement excessive discretion, is applied unevenly, and fails to adequately
inform Kathy, Sarah, and the general public of what conduct is illegal.
An Illustration of an Unconstitutional Riot Incitement Statute
In order to accomplish industrial or political reform, Ohio passed a law that
made it illegal to "advocate[ing]...the duty, necessity, or propriety of crime,
sabotage, violence, or unlawful methods of terrorism" and to "voluntarily
assembl[e] with any society, group, or assemblage of persons formed to teach or
advocate the doctrines of criminal syndicalism" (Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §
2923.13). A Ku Klux Klan leader was found guilty under the statute after
footage of him presiding over a KKK gathering was shown in the media.
"Therefore, we are faced with a statute that, by its own language and as applied,
purports to punish mere advocacy and to forbid, on pain of criminal
punishment, assembly with others merely to advocate the described type of
action," the US Supreme Court ruled [Footnote 4]. A law like that is prohibited
by the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
An Illustration of a Statute Void for Vagueness
A law that makes "inappropriate attire on public beaches" illegal is passed by
the state legislature. Because Larry, a law enforcement officer, believes that
women should only wear one-piece bathing suits, he arrests Kathy for wearing
two. Two days later, Sarah is arrested by Burt, another police officer, for
wearing a one-piece bathing suit at the beach. Burt believes that women should
not be seen in bathing suits in public. Sarah and Kathy may challenge the statute
on its face and argue that it is ambiguous. The definition of "inappropriate" is
ambiguous and can vary from person to person. As a result, it gives law
enforcement excessive discretion, is applied unevenly, and fails to adequately
inform Kathy, Sarah, and the general public of what conduct is illegal.
An Illustration of an Unconstitutional Riot Incitement Statute
In order to accomplish industrial or political reform, Ohio passed a law that
made it illegal to "advocate[ing]...the duty, necessity, or propriety of crime,
sabotage, violence, or unlawful methods of terrorism" and to "voluntarily
assembl[e] with any society, group, or assemblage of persons formed to teach or
advocate the doctrines of criminal syndicalism" (Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §
2923.13). A Ku Klux Klan leader was found guilty under the statute after
footage of him presiding over a KKK gathering was shown in the media.
"Therefore, we are faced with a statute that, by its own language and as applied,
purports to punish mere advocacy and to forbid, on pain of criminal
punishment, assembly with others merely to advocate the described type of
action," the US Supreme Court ruled [Footnote 4]. A law like that is prohibited
by the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
An Illustration of a Statute Void for Vagueness
A law that makes "inappropriate attire on public beaches" illegal is passed by
the state legislature. Because Larry, a law enforcement officer, believes that
women should only wear one-piece bathing suits, he arrests Kathy for wearing
two. Two days later, Sarah is arrested by Burt, another police officer, for
wearing a one-piece bathing suit at the beach. Burt believes that women should
not be seen in bathing suits in public. Sarah and Kathy may challenge the statute
on its face and argue that it is ambiguous. The definition of "inappropriate" is
ambiguous and can vary from person to person. As a result, it gives law
enforcement excessive discretion, is applied unevenly, and fails to adequately
inform Kathy, Sarah, and the general public of what conduct is illegal.
An Illustration of an Unconstitutional Riot Incitement Statute
In order to accomplish industrial or political reform, Ohio passed a law that
made it illegal to "advocate[ing]...the duty, necessity, or propriety of crime,
sabotage, violence, or unlawful methods of terrorism" and to "voluntarily
assembl[e] with any society, group, or assemblage of persons formed to teach or
advocate the doctrines of criminal syndicalism" (Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §
2923.13). A Ku Klux Klan leader was found guilty under the statute after
footage of him presiding over a KKK gathering was shown in the media.
"Therefore, we are faced with a statute that, by its own language and as applied,
purports to punish mere advocacy and to forbid, on pain of criminal
punishment, assembly with others merely to advocate the described type of
action," the US Supreme Court ruled [Footnote 4]. A law like that is prohibited
by the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
An Illustration of a Statute Void for Vagueness
A law that makes "inappropriate attire on public beaches" illegal is passed by
the state legislature. Because Larry, a law enforcement officer, believes that
women should only wear one-piece bathing suits, he arrests Kathy for wearing
two. Two days later, Sarah is arrested by Burt, another police officer, for
wearing a one-piece bathing suit at the beach. Burt believes that women should
not be seen in bathing suits in public. Sarah and Kathy may challenge the statute
on its face and argue that it is ambiguous. The definition of "inappropriate" is
ambiguous and can vary from person to person. As a result, it gives law
enforcement excessive discretion, is applied unevenly, and fails to adequately
inform Kathy, Sarah, and the general public of what conduct is illegal.
An Illustration of an Unconstitutional Riot Incitement Statute
In order to accomplish industrial or political reform, Ohio passed a law that
made it illegal to "advocate[ing]...the duty, necessity, or propriety of crime,
sabotage, violence, or unlawful methods of terrorism" and to "voluntarily
assembl[e] with any society, group, or assemblage of persons formed to teach or
advocate the doctrines of criminal syndicalism" (Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §
2923.13). A Ku Klux Klan leader was found guilty under the statute after
footage of him presiding over a KKK gathering was shown in the media.
"Therefore, we are faced with a statute that, by its own language and as applied,
purports to punish mere advocacy and to forbid, on pain of criminal
punishment, assembly with others merely to advocate the described type of
action," the US Supreme Court ruled [Footnote 4]. A law like that is prohibited
by the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
An Illustration of a Statute Void for Vagueness
A law that makes "inappropriate attire on public beaches" illegal is passed by
the state legislature. Because Larry, a law enforcement officer, believes that
women should only wear one-piece bathing suits, he arrests Kathy for wearing
two. Two days later, Sarah is arrested by Burt, another police officer, for
wearing a one-piece bathing suit at the beach. Burt believes that women should
not be seen in bathing suits in public. Sarah and Kathy may challenge the statute
on its face and argue that it is ambiguous. The definition of "inappropriate" is
ambiguous and can vary from person to person. As a result, it gives law
enforcement excessive discretion, is applied unevenly, and fails to adequately
inform Kathy, Sarah, and the general public of what conduct is illegal.
An Illustration of an Unconstitutional Riot Incitement Statute
In order to accomplish industrial or political reform, Ohio passed a law that
made it illegal to "advocate[ing]...the duty, necessity, or propriety of crime,
sabotage, violence, or unlawful methods of terrorism" and to "voluntarily
assembl[e] with any society, group, or assemblage of persons formed to teach or
advocate the doctrines of criminal syndicalism" (Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §
2923.13). A Ku Klux Klan leader was found guilty under the statute after
footage of him presiding over a KKK gathering was shown in the media.
"Therefore, we are faced with a statute that, by its own language and as applied,
purports to punish mere advocacy and to forbid, on pain of criminal
punishment, assembly with others merely to advocate the described type of
action," the US Supreme Court ruled [Footnote 4]. A law like that is prohibited
by the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
An Illustration of a Statute Void for Vagueness
A law that makes "inappropriate attire on public beaches" illegal is passed by
the state legislature. Because Larry, a law enforcement officer, believes that
women should only wear one-piece bathing suits, he arrests Kathy for wearing
two. Two days later, Sarah is arrested by Burt, another police officer, for
wearing a one-piece bathing suit at the beach. Burt believes that women should
not be seen in bathing suits in public. Sarah and Kathy may challenge the statute
on its face and argue that it is ambiguous. The definition of "inappropriate" is
ambiguous and can vary from person to person. As a result, it gives law
enforcement excessive discretion, is applied unevenly, and fails to adequately
inform Kathy, Sarah, and the general public of what conduct is illegal.
An Illustration of an Unconstitutional Riot Incitement Statute
In order to accomplish industrial or political reform, Ohio passed a law that
made it illegal to "advocate[ing]...the duty, necessity, or propriety of crime,
sabotage, violence, or unlawful methods of terrorism" and to "voluntarily
assembl[e] with any society, group, or assemblage of persons formed to teach or
advocate the doctrines of criminal syndicalism" (Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §
2923.13). A Ku Klux Klan leader was found guilty under the statute after
footage of him presiding over a KKK gathering was shown in the media.
"Therefore, we are faced with a statute that, by its own language and as applied,
purports to punish mere advocacy and to forbid, on pain of criminal
punishment, assembly with others merely to advocate the described type of
action," the US Supreme Court ruled [Footnote 4]. A law like that is prohibited
by the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
An Illustration of a Statute Void for Vagueness
A law that makes "inappropriate attire on public beaches" illegal is passed by
the state legislature. Because Larry, a law enforcement officer, believes that
women should only wear one-piece bathing suits, he arrests Kathy for wearing
two. Two days later, Sarah is arrested by Burt, another police officer, for
wearing a one-piece bathing suit at the beach. Burt believes that women should
not be seen in bathing suits in public. Sarah and Kathy may challenge the statute
on its face and argue that it is ambiguous. The definition of "inappropriate" is
ambiguous and can vary from person to person. As a result, it gives law
enforcement excessive discretion, is applied unevenly, and fails to adequately
inform Kathy, Sarah, and the general public of what conduct is illegal.
An Illustration of an Unconstitutional Riot Incitement Statute
In order to accomplish industrial or political reform, Ohio passed a law that
made it illegal to "advocate[ing]...the duty, necessity, or propriety of crime,
sabotage, violence, or unlawful methods of terrorism" and to "voluntarily
assembl[e] with any society, group, or assemblage of persons formed to teach or
advocate the doctrines of criminal syndicalism" (Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §
2923.13). A Ku Klux Klan leader was found guilty under the statute after
footage of him presiding over a KKK gathering was shown in the media.
"Therefore, we are faced with a statute that, by its own language and as applied,
purports to punish mere advocacy and to forbid, on pain of criminal
punishment, assembly with others merely to advocate the described type of
action," the US Supreme Court ruled [Footnote 4]. A law like that is prohibited
by the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
An Illustration of a Statute Void for Vagueness
A law that makes "inappropriate attire on public beaches" illegal is passed by
the state legislature. Because Larry, a law enforcement officer, believes that
women should only wear one-piece bathing suits, he arrests Kathy for wearing
two. Two days later, Sarah is arrested by Burt, another police officer, for
wearing a one-piece bathing suit at the beach. Burt believes that women should
not be seen in bathing suits in public. Sarah and Kathy may challenge the statute
on its face and argue that it is ambiguous. The definition of "inappropriate" is
ambiguous and can vary from person to person. As a result, it gives law
enforcement excessive discretion, is applied unevenly, and fails to adequately
inform Kathy, Sarah, and the general public of what conduct is illegal.
An Illustration of an Unconstitutional Riot Incitement Statute
In order to accomplish industrial or political reform, Ohio passed a law that
made it illegal to "advocate[ing]...the duty, necessity, or propriety of crime,
sabotage, violence, or unlawful methods of terrorism" and to "voluntarily
assembl[e] with any society, group, or assemblage of persons formed to teach or
advocate the doctrines of criminal syndicalism" (Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §
2923.13). A Ku Klux Klan leader was found guilty under the statute after
footage of him presiding over a KKK gathering was shown in the media.
"Therefore, we are faced with a statute that, by its own language and as applied,
purports to punish mere advocacy and to forbid, on pain of criminal
punishment, assembly with others merely to advocate the described type of
action," the US Supreme Court ruled [Footnote 4]. A law like that is prohibited
by the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
An Illustration of a Statute Void for Vagueness
A law that makes "inappropriate attire on public beaches" illegal is passed by
the state legislature. Because Larry, a law enforcement officer, believes that
women should only wear one-piece bathing suits, he arrests Kathy for wearing
two. Two days later, Sarah is arrested by Burt, another police officer, for
wearing a one-piece bathing suit at the beach. Burt believes that women should
not be seen in bathing suits in public. Sarah and Kathy may challenge the statute
on its face and argue that it is ambiguous. The definition of "inappropriate" is
ambiguous and can vary from person to person. As a result, it gives law
enforcement excessive discretion, is applied unevenly, and fails to adequately
inform Kathy, Sarah, and the general public of what conduct is illegal.
An Illustration of an Unconstitutional Riot Incitement Statute
In order to accomplish industrial or political reform, Ohio passed a law that
made it illegal to "advocate[ing]...the duty, necessity, or propriety of crime,
sabotage, violence, or unlawful methods of terrorism" and to "voluntarily
assembl[e] with any society, group, or assemblage of persons formed to teach or
advocate the doctrines of criminal syndicalism" (Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §
2923.13). A Ku Klux Klan leader was found guilty under the statute after
footage of him presiding over a KKK gathering was shown in the media.
"Therefore, we are faced with a statute that, by its own language and as applied,
purports to punish mere advocacy and to forbid, on pain of criminal
punishment, assembly with others merely to advocate the described type of
action," the US Supreme Court ruled [Footnote 4]. A law like that is prohibited
by the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
An Illustration of a Statute Void for Vagueness
A law that makes "inappropriate attire on public beaches" illegal is passed by
the state legislature. Because Larry, a law enforcement officer, believes that
women should only wear one-piece bathing suits, he arrests Kathy for wearing
two. Two days later, Sarah is arrested by Burt, another police officer, for
wearing a one-piece bathing suit at the beach. Burt believes that women should
not be seen in bathing suits in public. Sarah and Kathy may challenge the statute
on its face and argue that it is ambiguous. The definition of "inappropriate" is
ambiguous and can vary from person to person. As a result, it gives law
enforcement excessive discretion, is applied unevenly, and fails to adequately
inform Kathy, Sarah, and the general public of what conduct is illegal.
An Illustration of an Unconstitutional Riot Incitement Statute
In order to accomplish industrial or political reform, Ohio passed a law that
made it illegal to "advocate[ing]...the duty, necessity, or propriety of crime,
sabotage, violence, or unlawful methods of terrorism" and to "voluntarily
assembl[e] with any society, group, or assemblage of persons formed to teach or
advocate the doctrines of criminal syndicalism" (Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §
2923.13). A Ku Klux Klan leader was found guilty under the statute after
footage of him presiding over a KKK gathering was shown in the media.
"Therefore, we are faced with a statute that, by its own language and as applied,
purports to punish mere advocacy and to forbid, on pain of criminal
punishment, assembly with others merely to advocate the described type of
action," the US Supreme Court ruled [Footnote 4]. A law like that is prohibited
by the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
An Illustration of a Statute Void for Vagueness
A law that makes "inappropriate attire on public beaches" illegal is passed by
the state legislature. Because Larry, a law enforcement officer, believes that
women should only wear one-piece bathing suits, he arrests Kathy for wearing
two. Two days later, Sarah is arrested by Burt, another police officer, for
wearing a one-piece bathing suit at the beach. Burt believes that women should
not be seen in bathing suits in public. Sarah and Kathy may challenge the statute
on its face and argue that it is ambiguous. The definition of "inappropriate" is
ambiguous and can vary from person to person. As a result, it gives law
enforcement excessive discretion, is applied unevenly, and fails to adequately
inform Kathy, Sarah, and the general public of what conduct is illegal.
An Illustration of an Unconstitutional Riot Incitement Statute
In order to accomplish industrial or political reform, Ohio passed a law that
made it illegal to "advocate[ing]...the duty, necessity, or propriety of crime,
sabotage, violence, or unlawful methods of terrorism" and to "voluntarily
assembl[e] with any society, group, or assemblage of persons formed to teach or
advocate the doctrines of criminal syndicalism" (Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §
2923.13). A Ku Klux Klan leader was found guilty under the statute after
footage of him presiding over a KKK gathering was shown in the media.
"Therefore, we are faced with a statute that, by its own language and as applied,
purports to punish mere advocacy and to forbid, on pain of criminal
punishment, assembly with others merely to advocate the described type of
action," the US Supreme Court ruled [Footnote 4]. A law like that is prohibited
by the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
An Illustration of a Statute Void for Vagueness
A law that makes "inappropriate attire on public beaches" illegal is passed by
the state legislature. Because Larry, a law enforcement officer, believes that
women should only wear one-piece bathing suits, he arrests Kathy for wearing
two. Two days later, Sarah is arrested by Burt, another police officer, for
wearing a one-piece bathing suit at the beach. Burt believes that women should
not be seen in bathing suits in public. Sarah and Kathy may challenge the statute
on its face and argue that it is ambiguous. The definition of "inappropriate" is
ambiguous and can vary from person to person. As a result, it gives law
enforcement excessive discretion, is applied unevenly, and fails to adequately
inform Kathy, Sarah, and the general public of what conduct is illegal.
An Illustration of an Unconstitutional Riot Incitement Statute
In order to accomplish industrial or political reform, Ohio passed a law that
made it illegal to "advocate[ing]...the duty, necessity, or propriety of crime,
sabotage, violence, or unlawful methods of terrorism" and to "voluntarily
assembl[e] with any society, group, or assemblage of persons formed to teach or
advocate the doctrines of criminal syndicalism" (Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §
2923.13). A Ku Klux Klan leader was found guilty under the statute after
footage of him presiding over a KKK gathering was shown in the media.
"Therefore, we are faced with a statute that, by its own language and as applied,
purports to punish mere advocacy and to forbid, on pain of criminal
punishment, assembly with others merely to advocate the described type of
action," the US Supreme Court ruled [Footnote 4]. A law like that is prohibited
by the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
An Illustration of a Statute Void for Vagueness
A law that makes "inappropriate attire on public beaches" illegal is passed by
the state legislature. Because Larry, a law enforcement officer, believes that
women should only wear one-piece bathing suits, he arrests Kathy for wearing
two. Two days later, Sarah is arrested by Burt, another police officer, for
wearing a one-piece bathing suit at the beach. Burt believes that women should
not be seen in bathing suits in public. Sarah and Kathy may challenge the statute
on its face and argue that it is ambiguous. The definition of "inappropriate" is
ambiguous and can vary from person to person. As a result, it gives law
enforcement excessive discretion, is applied unevenly, and fails to adequately
inform Kathy, Sarah, and the general public of what conduct is illegal.
An Illustration of an Unconstitutional Riot Incitement Statute
In order to accomplish industrial or political reform, Ohio passed a law that
made it illegal to "advocate[ing]...the duty, necessity, or propriety of crime,
sabotage, violence, or unlawful methods of terrorism" and to "voluntarily
assembl[e] with any society, group, or assemblage of persons formed to teach or
advocate the doctrines of criminal syndicalism" (Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §
2923.13). A Ku Klux Klan leader was found guilty under the statute after
footage of him presiding over a KKK gathering was shown in the media.
"Therefore, we are faced with a statute that, by its own language and as applied,
purports to punish mere advocacy and to forbid, on pain of criminal
punishment, assembly with others merely to advocate the described type of
action," the US Supreme Court ruled [Footnote 4]. A law like that is prohibited
by the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
An Illustration of a Statute Void for Vagueness
A law that makes "inappropriate attire on public beaches" illegal is passed by
the state legislature. Because Larry, a law enforcement officer, believes that
women should only wear one-piece bathing suits, he arrests Kathy for wearing
two. Two days later, Sarah is arrested by Burt, another police officer, for
wearing a one-piece bathing suit at the beach. Burt believes that women should
not be seen in bathing suits in public. Sarah and Kathy may challenge the statute
on its face and argue that it is ambiguous. The definition of "inappropriate" is
ambiguous and can vary from person to person. As a result, it gives law
enforcement excessive discretion, is applied unevenly, and fails to adequately
inform Kathy, Sarah, and the general public of what conduct is illegal.
An Illustration of an Unconstitutional Riot Incitement Statute
In order to accomplish industrial or political reform, Ohio passed a law that
made it illegal to "advocate[ing]...the duty, necessity, or propriety of crime,
sabotage, violence, or unlawful methods of terrorism" and to "voluntarily
assembl[e] with any society, group, or assemblage of persons formed to teach or
advocate the doctrines of criminal syndicalism" (Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §
2923.13). A Ku Klux Klan leader was found guilty under the statute after
footage of him presiding over a KKK gathering was shown in the media.
"Therefore, we are faced with a statute that, by its own language and as applied,
purports to punish mere advocacy and to forbid, on pain of criminal
punishment, assembly with others merely to advocate the described type of
action," the US Supreme Court ruled [Footnote 4]. A law like that is prohibited
by the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
An Illustration of a Statute Void for Vagueness
A law that makes "inappropriate attire on public beaches" illegal is passed by
the state legislature. Because Larry, a law enforcement officer, believes that
women should only wear one-piece bathing suits, he arrests Kathy for wearing
two. Two days later, Sarah is arrested by Burt, another police officer, for
wearing a one-piece bathing suit at the beach. Burt believes that women should
not be seen in bathing suits in public. Sarah and Kathy may challenge the statute
on its face and argue that it is ambiguous. The definition of "inappropriate" is
ambiguous and can vary from person to person. As a result, it gives law
enforcement excessive discretion, is applied unevenly, and fails to adequately
inform Kathy, Sarah, and the general public of what conduct is illegal.
An Illustration of an Unconstitutional Riot Incitement Statute
In order to accomplish industrial or political reform, Ohio passed a law that
made it illegal to "advocate[ing]...the duty, necessity, or propriety of crime,
sabotage, violence, or unlawful methods of terrorism" and to "voluntarily
assembl[e] with any society, group, or assemblage of persons formed to teach or
advocate the doctrines of criminal syndicalism" (Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §
2923.13). A Ku Klux Klan leader was found guilty under the statute after
footage of him presiding over a KKK gathering was shown in the media.
"Therefore, we are faced with a statute that, by its own language and as applied,
purports to punish mere advocacy and to forbid, on pain of criminal
punishment, assembly with others merely to advocate the described type of
action," the US Supreme Court ruled [Footnote 4]. A law like that is prohibited
by the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
An Illustration of a Statute Void for Vagueness
A law that makes "inappropriate attire on public beaches" illegal is passed by
the state legislature. Because Larry, a law enforcement officer, believes that
women should only wear one-piece bathing suits, he arrests Kathy for wearing
two. Two days later, Sarah is arrested by Burt, another police officer, for
wearing a one-piece bathing suit at the beach. Burt believes that women should
not be seen in bathing suits in public. Sarah and Kathy may challenge the statute
on its face and argue that it is ambiguous. The definition of "inappropriate" is
ambiguous and can vary from person to person. As a result, it gives law
enforcement excessive discretion, is applied unevenly, and fails to adequately
inform Kathy, Sarah, and the general public of what conduct is illegal.
An Illustration of an Unconstitutional Riot Incitement Statute
In order to accomplish industrial or political reform, Ohio passed a law that
made it illegal to "advocate[ing]...the duty, necessity, or propriety of crime,
sabotage, violence, or unlawful methods of terrorism" and to "voluntarily
assembl[e] with any society, group, or assemblage of persons formed to teach or
advocate the doctrines of criminal syndicalism" (Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §
2923.13). A Ku Klux Klan leader was found guilty under the statute after
footage of him presiding over a KKK gathering was shown in the media.
"Therefore, we are faced with a statute that, by its own language and as applied,
purports to punish mere advocacy and to forbid, on pain of criminal
punishment, assembly with others merely to advocate the described type of
action," the US Supreme Court ruled [Footnote 4]. A law like that is prohibited
by the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
An Illustration of a Statute Void for Vagueness
A law that makes "inappropriate attire on public beaches" illegal is passed by
the state legislature. Because Larry, a law enforcement officer, believes that
women should only wear one-piece bathing suits, he arrests Kathy for wearing
two. Two days later, Sarah is arrested by Burt, another police officer, for
wearing a one-piece bathing suit at the beach. Burt believes that women should
not be seen in bathing suits in public. Sarah and Kathy may challenge the statute
on its face and argue that it is ambiguous. The definition of "inappropriate" is
ambiguous and can vary from person to person. As a result, it gives law
enforcement excessive discretion, is applied unevenly, and fails to adequately
inform Kathy, Sarah, and the general public of what conduct is illegal.
An Illustration of an Unconstitutional Riot Incitement Statute
In order to accomplish industrial or political reform, Ohio passed a law that
made it illegal to "advocate[ing]...the duty, necessity, or propriety of crime,
sabotage, violence, or unlawful methods of terrorism" and to "voluntarily
assembl[e] with any society, group, or assemblage of persons formed to teach or
advocate the doctrines of criminal syndicalism" (Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §
2923.13). A Ku Klux Klan leader was found guilty under the statute after
footage of him presiding over a KKK gathering was shown in the media.
"Therefore, we are faced with a statute that, by its own language and as applied,
purports to punish mere advocacy and to forbid, on pain of criminal
punishment, assembly with others merely to advocate the described type of
action," the US Supreme Court ruled [Footnote 4]. A law like that is prohibited
by the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
An Illustration of a Statute Void for Vagueness
A law that makes "inappropriate attire on public beaches" illegal is passed by
the state legislature. Because Larry, a law enforcement officer, believes that
women should only wear one-piece bathing suits, he arrests Kathy for wearing
two. Two days later, Sarah is arrested by Burt, another police officer, for
wearing a one-piece bathing suit at the beach. Burt believes that women should
not be seen in bathing suits in public. Sarah and Kathy may challenge the statute
on its face and argue that it is ambiguous. The definition of "inappropriate" is
ambiguous and can vary from person to person. As a result, it gives law
enforcement excessive discretion, is applied unevenly, and fails to adequately
inform Kathy, Sarah, and the general public of what conduct is illegal.
An Illustration of an Unconstitutional Riot Incitement Statute
In order to accomplish industrial or political reform, Ohio passed a law that
made it illegal to "advocate[ing]...the duty, necessity, or propriety of crime,
sabotage, violence, or unlawful methods of terrorism" and to "voluntarily
assembl[e] with any society, group, or assemblage of persons formed to teach or
advocate the doctrines of criminal syndicalism" (Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §
2923.13). A Ku Klux Klan leader was found guilty under the statute after
footage of him presiding over a KKK gathering was shown in the media.
"Therefore, we are faced with a statute that, by its own language and as applied,
purports to punish mere advocacy and to forbid, on pain of criminal
punishment, assembly with others merely to advocate the described type of
action," the US Supreme Court ruled [Footnote 4]. A law like that is prohibited
by the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
An Illustration of a Statute Void for Vagueness
A law that makes "inappropriate attire on public beaches" illegal is passed by
the state legislature. Because Larry, a law enforcement officer, believes that
women should only wear one-piece bathing suits, he arrests Kathy for wearing
two. Two days later, Sarah is arrested by Burt, another police officer, for
wearing a one-piece bathing suit at the beach. Burt believes that women should
not be seen in bathing suits in public. Sarah and Kathy may challenge the statute
on its face and argue that it is ambiguous. The definition of "inappropriate" is
ambiguous and can vary from person to person. As a result, it gives law
enforcement excessive discretion, is applied unevenly, and fails to adequately
inform Kathy, Sarah, and the general public of what conduct is illegal.
An Illustration of an Unconstitutional Riot Incitement Statute
In order to accomplish industrial or political reform, Ohio passed a law that
made it illegal to "advocate[ing]...the duty, necessity, or propriety of crime,
sabotage, violence, or unlawful methods of terrorism" and to "voluntarily
assembl[e] with any society, group, or assemblage of persons formed to teach or
advocate the doctrines of criminal syndicalism" (Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §
2923.13). A Ku Klux Klan leader was found guilty under the statute after
footage of him presiding over a KKK gathering was shown in the media.
"Therefore, we are faced with a statute that, by its own language and as applied,
purports to punish mere advocacy and to forbid, on pain of criminal
punishment, assembly with others merely to advocate the described type of
action," the US Supreme Court ruled [Footnote 4]. A law like that is prohibited
by the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
An Illustration of a Statute Void for Vagueness
A law that makes "inappropriate attire on public beaches" illegal is passed by
the state legislature. Because Larry, a law enforcement officer, believes that
women should only wear one-piece bathing suits, he arrests Kathy for wearing
two. Two days later, Sarah is arrested by Burt, another police officer, for
wearing a one-piece bathing suit at the beach. Burt believes that women should
not be seen in bathing suits in public. Sarah and Kathy may challenge the statute
on its face and argue that it is ambiguous. The definition of "inappropriate" is
ambiguous and can vary from person to person. As a result, it gives law
enforcement excessive discretion, is applied unevenly, and fails to adequately
inform Kathy, Sarah, and the general public of what conduct is illegal.
An Illustration of an Unconstitutional Riot Incitement Statute
In order to accomplish industrial or political reform, Ohio passed a law that
made it illegal to "advocate[ing]...the duty, necessity, or propriety of crime,
sabotage, violence, or unlawful methods of terrorism" and to "voluntarily
assembl[e] with any society, group, or assemblage of persons formed to teach or
advocate the doctrines of criminal syndicalism" (Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §
2923.13). A Ku Klux Klan leader was found guilty under the statute after
footage of him presiding over a KKK gathering was shown in the media.
"Therefore, we are faced with a statute that, by its own language and as applied,
purports to punish mere advocacy and to forbid, on pain of criminal
punishment, assembly with others merely to advocate the described type of
action," the US Supreme Court ruled [Footnote 4]. A law like that is prohibited
by the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
An Illustration of a Statute Void for Vagueness
A law that makes "inappropriate attire on public beaches" illegal is passed by
the state legislature. Because Larry, a law enforcement officer, believes that
women should only wear one-piece bathing suits, he arrests Kathy for wearing
two. Two days later, Sarah is arrested by Burt, another police officer, for
wearing a one-piece bathing suit at the beach. Burt believes that women should
not be seen in bathing suits in public. Sarah and Kathy may challenge the statute
on its face and argue that it is ambiguous. The definition of "inappropriate" is
ambiguous and can vary from person to person. As a result, it gives law
enforcement excessive discretion, is applied unevenly, and fails to adequately
inform Kathy, Sarah, and the general public of what conduct is illegal.
An Illustration of an Unconstitutional Riot Incitement Statute
In order to accomplish industrial or political reform, Ohio passed a law that
made it illegal to "advocate[ing]...the duty, necessity, or propriety of crime,
sabotage, violence, or unlawful methods of terrorism" and to "voluntarily
assembl[e] with any society, group, or assemblage of persons formed to teach or
advocate the doctrines of criminal syndicalism" (Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §
2923.13). A Ku Klux Klan leader was found guilty under the statute after
footage of him presiding over a KKK gathering was shown in the media.
"Therefore, we are faced with a statute that, by its own language and as applied,
purports to punish mere advocacy and to forbid, on pain of criminal
punishment, assembly with others merely to advocate the described type of
action," the US Supreme Court ruled [Footnote 4]. A law like that is prohibited
by the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
An Illustration of a Statute Void for Vagueness
A law that makes "inappropriate attire on public beaches" illegal is passed by
the state legislature. Because Larry, a law enforcement officer, believes that
women should only wear one-piece bathing suits, he arrests Kathy for wearing
two. Two days later, Sarah is arrested by Burt, another police officer, for
wearing a one-piece bathing suit at the beach. Burt believes that women should
not be seen in bathing suits in public. Sarah and Kathy may challenge the statute
on its face and argue that it is ambiguous. The definition of "inappropriate" is
ambiguous and can vary from person to person. As a result, it gives law
enforcement excessive discretion, is applied unevenly, and fails to adequately
inform Kathy, Sarah, and the general public of what conduct is illegal.
An Illustration of an Unconstitutional Riot Incitement Statute
In order to accomplish industrial or political reform, Ohio passed a law that
made it illegal to "advocate[ing]...the duty, necessity, or propriety of crime,
sabotage, violence, or unlawful methods of terrorism" and to "voluntarily
assembl[e] with any society, group, or assemblage of persons formed to teach or
advocate the doctrines of criminal syndicalism" (Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §
2923.13). A Ku Klux Klan leader was found guilty under the statute after
footage of him presiding over a KKK gathering was shown in the media.
"Therefore, we are faced with a statute that, by its own language and as applied,
purports to punish mere advocacy and to forbid, on pain of criminal
punishment, assembly with others merely to advocate the described type of
action," the US Supreme Court ruled [Footnote 4]. A law like that is prohibited
by the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
An Illustration of a Statute Void for Vagueness
A law that makes "inappropriate attire on public beaches" illegal is passed by
the state legislature. Because Larry, a law enforcement officer, believes that
women should only wear one-piece bathing suits, he arrests Kathy for wearing
two. Two days later, Sarah is arrested by Burt, another police officer, for
wearing a one-piece bathing suit at the beach. Burt believes that women should
not be seen in bathing suits in public. Sarah and Kathy may challenge the statute
on its face and argue that it is ambiguous. The definition of "inappropriate" is
ambiguous and can vary from person to person. As a result, it gives law
enforcement excessive discretion, is applied unevenly, and fails to adequately
inform Kathy, Sarah, and the general public of what conduct is illegal.
An Illustration of an Unconstitutional Riot Incitement Statute
In order to accomplish industrial or political reform, Ohio passed a law that
made it illegal to "advocate[ing]...the duty, necessity, or propriety of crime,
sabotage, violence, or unlawful methods of terrorism" and to "voluntarily
assembl[e] with any society, group, or assemblage of persons formed to teach or
advocate the doctrines of criminal syndicalism" (Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §
2923.13). A Ku Klux Klan leader was found guilty under the statute after
footage of him presiding over a KKK gathering was shown in the media.
"Therefore, we are faced with a statute that, by its own language and as applied,
purports to punish mere advocacy and to forbid, on pain of criminal
punishment, assembly with others merely to advocate the described type of
action," the US Supreme Court ruled [Footnote 4]. A law like that is prohibited
by the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
An Illustration of a Statute Void for Vagueness
A law that makes "inappropriate attire on public beaches" illegal is passed by
the state legislature. Because Larry, a law enforcement officer, believes that
women should only wear one-piece bathing suits, he arrests Kathy for wearing
two. Two days later, Sarah is arrested by Burt, another police officer, for
wearing a one-piece bathing suit at the beach. Burt believes that women should
not be seen in bathing suits in public. Sarah and Kathy may challenge the statute
on its face and argue that it is ambiguous. The definition of "inappropriate" is
ambiguous and can vary from person to person. As a result, it gives law
enforcement excessive discretion, is applied unevenly, and fails to adequately
inform Kathy, Sarah, and the general public of what conduct is illegal.
An Illustration of an Unconstitutional Riot Incitement Statute
In order to accomplish industrial or political reform, Ohio passed a law that
made it illegal to "advocate[ing]...the duty, necessity, or propriety of crime,
sabotage, violence, or unlawful methods of terrorism" and to "voluntarily
assembl[e] with any society, group, or assemblage of persons formed to teach or
advocate the doctrines of criminal syndicalism" (Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §
2923.13). A Ku Klux Klan leader was found guilty under the statute after
footage of him presiding over a KKK gathering was shown in the media.
"Therefore, we are faced with a statute that, by its own language and as applied,
purports to punish mere advocacy and to forbid, on pain of criminal
punishment, assembly with others merely to advocate the described type of
action," the US Supreme Court ruled [Footnote 4]. A law like that is prohibited
by the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
An Illustration of a Statute Void for Vagueness
A law that makes "inappropriate attire on public beaches" illegal is passed by
the state legislature. Because Larry, a law enforcement officer, believes that
women should only wear one-piece bathing suits, he arrests Kathy for wearing
two. Two days later, Sarah is arrested by Burt, another police officer, for
wearing a one-piece bathing suit at the beach. Burt believes that women should
not be seen in bathing suits in public. Sarah and Kathy may challenge the statute
on its face and argue that it is ambiguous. The definition of "inappropriate" is
ambiguous and can vary from person to person. As a result, it gives law
enforcement excessive discretion, is applied unevenly, and fails to adequately
inform Kathy, Sarah, and the general public of what conduct is illegal.
An Illustration of an Unconstitutional Riot Incitement Statute
In order to accomplish industrial or political reform, Ohio passed a law that
made it illegal to "advocate[ing]...the duty, necessity, or propriety of crime,
sabotage, violence, or unlawful methods of terrorism" and to "voluntarily
assembl[e] with any society, group, or assemblage of persons formed to teach or
advocate the doctrines of criminal syndicalism" (Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §
2923.13). A Ku Klux Klan leader was found guilty under the statute after
footage of him presiding over a KKK gathering was shown in the media.
"Therefore, we are faced with a statute that, by its own language and as applied,
purports to punish mere advocacy and to forbid, on pain of criminal
punishment, assembly with others merely to advocate the described type of
action," the US Supreme Court ruled [Footnote 4]. A law like that is prohibited
by the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
An Illustration of a Statute Void for Vagueness
A law that makes "inappropriate attire on public beaches" illegal is passed by
the state legislature. Because Larry, a law enforcement officer, believes that
women should only wear one-piece bathing suits, he arrests Kathy for wearing
two. Two days later, Sarah is arrested by Burt, another police officer, for
wearing a one-piece bathing suit at the beach. Burt believes that women should
not be seen in bathing suits in public. Sarah and Kathy may challenge the statute
on its face and argue that it is ambiguous. The definition of "inappropriate" is
ambiguous and can vary from person to person. As a result, it gives law
enforcement excessive discretion, is applied unevenly, and fails to adequately
inform Kathy, Sarah, and the general public of what conduct is illegal.
An Illustration of an Unconstitutional Riot Incitement Statute
In order to accomplish industrial or political reform, Ohio passed a law that
made it illegal to "advocate[ing]...the duty, necessity, or propriety of crime,
sabotage, violence, or unlawful methods of terrorism" and to "voluntarily
assembl[e] with any society, group, or assemblage of persons formed to teach or
advocate the doctrines of criminal syndicalism" (Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §
2923.13). A Ku Klux Klan leader was found guilty under the statute after
footage of him presiding over a KKK gathering was shown in the media.
"Therefore, we are faced with a statute that, by its own language and as applied,
purports to punish mere advocacy and to forbid, on pain of criminal
punishment, assembly with others merely to advocate the described type of
action," the US Supreme Court ruled [Footnote 4]. A law like that is prohibited
by the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
An Illustration of a Statute Void for Vagueness
A law that makes "inappropriate attire on public beaches" illegal is passed by
the state legislature. Because Larry, a law enforcement officer, believes that
women should only wear one-piece bathing suits, he arrests Kathy for wearing
two. Two days later, Sarah is arrested by Burt, another police officer, for
wearing a one-piece bathing suit at the beach. Burt believes that women should
not be seen in bathing suits in public. Sarah and Kathy may challenge the statute
on its face and argue that it is ambiguous. The definition of "inappropriate" is
ambiguous and can vary from person to person. As a result, it gives law
enforcement excessive discretion, is applied unevenly, and fails to adequately
inform Kathy, Sarah, and the general public of what conduct is illegal.
An Illustration of an Unconstitutional Riot Incitement Statute
In order to accomplish industrial or political reform, Ohio passed a law that
made it illegal to "advocate[ing]...the duty, necessity, or propriety of crime,
sabotage, violence, or unlawful methods of terrorism" and to "voluntarily
assembl[e] with any society, group, or assemblage of persons formed to teach or
advocate the doctrines of criminal syndicalism" (Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §
2923.13). A Ku Klux Klan leader was found guilty under the statute after
footage of him presiding over a KKK gathering was shown in the media.
"Therefore, we are faced with a statute that, by its own language and as applied,
purports to punish mere advocacy and to forbid, on pain of criminal
punishment, assembly with others merely to advocate the described type of
action," the US Supreme Court ruled [Footnote 4]. A law like that is prohibited
by the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
An Illustration of a Statute Void for Vagueness
A law that makes "inappropriate attire on public beaches" illegal is passed by
the state legislature. Because Larry, a law enforcement officer, believes that
women should only wear one-piece bathing suits, he arrests Kathy for wearing
two. Two days later, Sarah is arrested by Burt, another police officer, for
wearing a one-piece bathing suit at the beach. Burt believes that women should
not be seen in bathing suits in public. Sarah and Kathy may challenge the statute
on its face and argue that it is ambiguous. The definition of "inappropriate" is
ambiguous and can vary from person to person. As a result, it gives law
enforcement excessive discretion, is applied unevenly, and fails to adequately
inform Kathy, Sarah, and the general public of what conduct is illegal.
An Illustration of an Unconstitutional Riot Incitement Statute
In order to accomplish industrial or political reform, Ohio passed a law that
made it illegal to "advocate[ing]...the duty, necessity, or propriety of crime,
sabotage, violence, or unlawful methods of terrorism" and to "voluntarily
assembl[e] with any society, group, or assemblage of persons formed to teach or
advocate the doctrines of criminal syndicalism" (Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §
2923.13). A Ku Klux Klan leader was found guilty under the statute after
footage of him presiding over a KKK gathering was shown in the media.
"Therefore, we are faced with a statute that, by its own language and as applied,
purports to punish mere advocacy and to forbid, on pain of criminal
punishment, assembly with others merely to advocate the described type of
action," the US Supreme Court ruled [Footnote 4]. A law like that is prohibited
by the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
An Illustration of a Statute Void for Vagueness
A law that makes "inappropriate attire on public beaches" illegal is passed by
the state legislature. Because Larry, a law enforcement officer, believes that
women should only wear one-piece bathing suits, he arrests Kathy for wearing
two. Two days later, Sarah is arrested by Burt, another police officer, for
wearing a one-piece bathing suit at the beach. Burt believes that women should
not be seen in bathing suits in public. Sarah and Kathy may challenge the statute
on its face and argue that it is ambiguous. The definition of "inappropriate" is
ambiguous and can vary from person to person. As a result, it gives law
enforcement excessive discretion, is applied unevenly, and fails to adequately
inform Kathy, Sarah, and the general public of what conduct is illegal.
An Illustration of an Unconstitutional Riot Incitement Statute
In order to accomplish industrial or political reform, Ohio passed a law that
made it illegal to "advocate[ing]...the duty, necessity, or propriety of crime,
sabotage, violence, or unlawful methods of terrorism" and to "voluntarily
assembl[e] with any society, group, or assemblage of persons formed to teach or
advocate the doctrines of criminal syndicalism" (Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §
2923.13). A Ku Klux Klan leader was found guilty under the statute after
footage of him presiding over a KKK gathering was shown in the media.
"Therefore, we are faced with a statute that, by its own language and as applied,
purports to punish mere advocacy and to forbid, on pain of criminal
punishment, assembly with others merely to advocate the described type of
action," the US Supreme Court ruled [Footnote 4]. A law like that is prohibited
by the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
An Illustration of a Statute Void for Vagueness
A law that makes "inappropriate attire on public beaches" illegal is passed by
the state legislature. Because Larry, a law enforcement officer, believes that
women should only wear one-piece bathing suits, he arrests Kathy for wearing
two. Two days later, Sarah is arrested by Burt, another police officer, for
wearing a one-piece bathing suit at the beach. Burt believes that women should
not be seen in bathing suits in public. Sarah and Kathy may challenge the statute
on its face and argue that it is ambiguous. The definition of "inappropriate" is
ambiguous and can vary from person to person. As a result, it gives law
enforcement excessive discretion, is applied unevenly, and fails to adequately
inform Kathy, Sarah, and the general public of what conduct is illegal.
An Illustration of an Unconstitutional Riot Incitement Statute
In order to accomplish industrial or political reform, Ohio passed a law that
made it illegal to "advocate[ing]...the duty, necessity, or propriety of crime,
sabotage, violence, or unlawful methods of terrorism" and to "voluntarily
assembl[e] with any society, group, or assemblage of persons formed to teach or
advocate the doctrines of criminal syndicalism" (Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §
2923.13). A Ku Klux Klan leader was found guilty under the statute after
footage of him presiding over a KKK gathering was shown in the media.
"Therefore, we are faced with a statute that, by its own language and as applied,
purports to punish mere advocacy and to forbid, on pain of criminal
punishment, assembly with others merely to advocate the described type of
action," the US Supreme Court ruled [Footnote 4]. A law like that is prohibited
by the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
An Illustration of a Statute Void for Vagueness
A law that makes "inappropriate attire on public beaches" illegal is passed by
the state legislature. Because Larry, a law enforcement officer, believes that
women should only wear one-piece bathing suits, he arrests Kathy for wearing
two. Two days later, Sarah is arrested by Burt, another police officer, for
wearing a one-piece bathing suit at the beach. Burt believes that women should
not be seen in bathing suits in public. Sarah and Kathy may challenge the statute
on its face and argue that it is ambiguous. The definition of "inappropriate" is
ambiguous and can vary from person to person. As a result, it gives law
enforcement excessive discretion, is applied unevenly, and fails to adequately
inform Kathy, Sarah, and the general public of what conduct is illegal.
An Illustration of an Unconstitutional Riot Incitement Statute
In order to accomplish industrial or political reform, Ohio passed a law that
made it illegal to "advocate[ing]...the duty, necessity, or propriety of crime,
sabotage, violence, or unlawful methods of terrorism" and to "voluntarily
assembl[e] with any society, group, or assemblage of persons formed to teach or
advocate the doctrines of criminal syndicalism" (Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §
2923.13). A Ku Klux Klan leader was found guilty under the statute after
footage of him presiding over a KKK gathering was shown in the media.
"Therefore, we are faced with a statute that, by its own language and as applied,
purports to punish mere advocacy and to forbid, on pain of criminal
punishment, assembly with others merely to advocate the described type of
action," the US Supreme Court ruled [Footnote 4]. A law like that is prohibited
by the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
An Illustration of a Statute Void for Vagueness
A law that makes "inappropriate attire on public beaches" illegal is passed by
the state legislature. Because Larry, a law enforcement officer, believes that
women should only wear one-piece bathing suits, he arrests Kathy for wearing
two. Two days later, Sarah is arrested by Burt, another police officer, for
wearing a one-piece bathing suit at the beach. Burt believes that women should
not be seen in bathing suits in public. Sarah and Kathy may challenge the statute
on its face and argue that it is ambiguous. The definition of "inappropriate" is
ambiguous and can vary from person to person. As a result, it gives law
enforcement excessive discretion, is applied unevenly, and fails to adequately
inform Kathy, Sarah, and the general public of what conduct is illegal.
An Illustration of an Unconstitutional Riot Incitement Statute
In order to accomplish industrial or political reform, Ohio passed a law that
made it illegal to "advocate[ing]...the duty, necessity, or propriety of crime,
sabotage, violence, or unlawful methods of terrorism" and to "voluntarily
assembl[e] with any society, group, or assemblage of persons formed to teach or
advocate the doctrines of criminal syndicalism" (Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §
2923.13). A Ku Klux Klan leader was found guilty under the statute after
footage of him presiding over a KKK gathering was shown in the media.
"Therefore, we are faced with a statute that, by its own language and as applied,
purports to punish mere advocacy and to forbid, on pain of criminal
punishment, assembly with others merely to advocate the described type of
action," the US Supreme Court ruled [Footnote 4]. A law like that is prohibited
by the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
An Illustration of a Statute Void for Vagueness
A law that makes "inappropriate attire on public beaches" illegal is passed by
the state legislature. Because Larry, a law enforcement officer, believes that
women should only wear one-piece bathing suits, he arrests Kathy for wearing
two. Two days later, Sarah is arrested by Burt, another police officer, for
wearing a one-piece bathing suit at the beach. Burt believes that women should
not be seen in bathing suits in public. Sarah and Kathy may challenge the statute
on its face and argue that it is ambiguous. The definition of "inappropriate" is
ambiguous and can vary from person to person. As a result, it gives law
enforcement excessive discretion, is applied unevenly, and fails to adequately
inform Kathy, Sarah, and the general public of what conduct is illegal.
An Illustration of an Unconstitutional Riot Incitement Statute
In order to accomplish industrial or political reform, Ohio passed a law that
made it illegal to "advocate[ing]...the duty, necessity, or propriety of crime,
sabotage, violence, or unlawful methods of terrorism" and to "voluntarily
assembl[e] with any society, group, or assemblage of persons formed to teach or
advocate the doctrines of criminal syndicalism" (Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §
2923.13). A Ku Klux Klan leader was found guilty under the statute after
footage of him presiding over a KKK gathering was shown in the media.
"Therefore, we are faced with a statute that, by its own language and as applied,
purports to punish mere advocacy and to forbid, on pain of criminal
punishment, assembly with others merely to advocate the described type of
action," the US Supreme Court ruled [Footnote 4]. A law like that is prohibited
by the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
An Illustration of a Statute Void for Vagueness
A law that makes "inappropriate attire on public beaches" illegal is passed by
the state legislature. Because Larry, a law enforcement officer, believes that
women should only wear one-piece bathing suits, he arrests Kathy for wearing
two. Two days later, Sarah is arrested by Burt, another police officer, for
wearing a one-piece bathing suit at the beach. Burt believes that women should
not be seen in bathing suits in public. Sarah and Kathy may challenge the statute
on its face and argue that it is ambiguous. The definition of "inappropriate" is
ambiguous and can vary from person to person. As a result, it gives law
enforcement excessive discretion, is applied unevenly, and fails to adequately
inform Kathy, Sarah, and the general public of what conduct is illegal.
An Illustration of an Unconstitutional Riot Incitement Statute
In order to accomplish industrial or political reform, Ohio passed a law that
made it illegal to "advocate[ing]...the duty, necessity, or propriety of crime,
sabotage, violence, or unlawful methods of terrorism" and to "voluntarily
assembl[e] with any society, group, or assemblage of persons formed to teach or
advocate the doctrines of criminal syndicalism" (Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §
2923.13). A Ku Klux Klan leader was found guilty under the statute after
footage of him presiding over a KKK gathering was shown in the media.
"Therefore, we are faced with a statute that, by its own language and as applied,
purports to punish mere advocacy and to forbid, on pain of criminal
punishment, assembly with others merely to advocate the described type of
action," the US Supreme Court ruled [Footnote 4]. A law like that is prohibited
by the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
An Illustration of a Statute Void for Vagueness
A law that makes "inappropriate attire on public beaches" illegal is passed by
the state legislature. Because Larry, a law enforcement officer, believes that
women should only wear one-piece bathing suits, he arrests Kathy for wearing
two. Two days later, Sarah is arrested by Burt, another police officer, for
wearing a one-piece bathing suit at the beach. Burt believes that women should
not be seen in bathing suits in public. Sarah and Kathy may challenge the statute
on its face and argue that it is ambiguous. The definition of "inappropriate" is
ambiguous and can vary from person to person. As a result, it gives law
enforcement excessive discretion, is applied unevenly, and fails to adequately
inform Kathy, Sarah, and the general public of what conduct is illegal.
An Illustration of an Unconstitutional Riot Incitement Statute
In order to accomplish industrial or political reform, Ohio passed a law that
made it illegal to "advocate[ing]...the duty, necessity, or propriety of crime,
sabotage, violence, or unlawful methods of terrorism" and to "voluntarily
assembl[e] with any society, group, or assemblage of persons formed to teach or
advocate the doctrines of criminal syndicalism" (Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §
2923.13). A Ku Klux Klan leader was found guilty under the statute after
footage of him presiding over a KKK gathering was shown in the media.
"Therefore, we are faced with a statute that, by its own language and as applied,
purports to punish mere advocacy and to forbid, on pain of criminal
punishment, assembly with others merely to advocate the described type of
action," the US Supreme Court ruled [Footnote 4]. A law like that is prohibited
by the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
An Illustration of a Statute Void for Vagueness
A law that makes "inappropriate attire on public beaches" illegal is passed by
the state legislature. Because Larry, a law enforcement officer, believes that
women should only wear one-piece bathing suits, he arrests Kathy for wearing
two. Two days later, Sarah is arrested by Burt, another police officer, for
wearing a one-piece bathing suit at the beach. Burt believes that women should
not be seen in bathing suits in public. Sarah and Kathy may challenge the statute
on its face and argue that it is ambiguous. The definition of "inappropriate" is
ambiguous and can vary from person to person. As a result, it gives law
enforcement excessive discretion, is applied unevenly, and fails to adequately
inform Kathy, Sarah, and the general public of what conduct is illegal.
An Illustration of an Unconstitutional Riot Incitement Statute
In order to accomplish industrial or political reform, Ohio passed a law that
made it illegal to "advocate[ing]...the duty, necessity, or propriety of crime,
sabotage, violence, or unlawful methods of terrorism" and to "voluntarily
assembl[e] with any society, group, or assemblage of persons formed to teach or
advocate the doctrines of criminal syndicalism" (Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §
2923.13). A Ku Klux Klan leader was found guilty under the statute after
footage of him presiding over a KKK gathering was shown in the media.
"Therefore, we are faced with a statute that, by its own language and as applied,
purports to punish mere advocacy and to forbid, on pain of criminal
punishment, assembly with others merely to advocate the described type of
action," the US Supreme Court ruled [Footnote 4]. A law like that is prohibited
by the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
An Illustration of a Statute Void for Vagueness
A law that makes "inappropriate attire on public beaches" illegal is passed by
the state legislature. Because Larry, a law enforcement officer, believes that
women should only wear one-piece bathing suits, he arrests Kathy for wearing
two. Two days later, Sarah is arrested by Burt, another police officer, for
wearing a one-piece bathing suit at the beach. Burt believes that women should
not be seen in bathing suits in public. Sarah and Kathy may challenge the statute
on its face and argue that it is ambiguous. The definition of "inappropriate" is
ambiguous and can vary from person to person. As a result, it gives law
enforcement excessive discretion, is applied unevenly, and fails to adequately
inform Kathy, Sarah, and the general public of what conduct is illegal.
An Illustration of an Unconstitutional Riot Incitement Statute
In order to accomplish industrial or political reform, Ohio passed a law that
made it illegal to "advocate[ing]...the duty, necessity, or propriety of crime,
sabotage, violence, or unlawful methods of terrorism" and to "voluntarily
assembl[e] with any society, group, or assemblage of persons formed to teach or
advocate the doctrines of criminal syndicalism" (Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §
2923.13). A Ku Klux Klan leader was found guilty under the statute after
footage of him presiding over a KKK gathering was shown in the media.
"Therefore, we are faced with a statute that, by its own language and as applied,
purports to punish mere advocacy and to forbid, on pain of criminal
punishment, assembly with others merely to advocate the described type of
action," the US Supreme Court ruled [Footnote 4]. A law like that is prohibited
by the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
An Illustration of a Statute Void for Vagueness
A law that makes "inappropriate attire on public beaches" illegal is passed by
the state legislature. Because Larry, a law enforcement officer, believes that
women should only wear one-piece bathing suits, he arrests Kathy for wearing
two. Two days later, Sarah is arrested by Burt, another police officer, for
wearing a one-piece bathing suit at the beach. Burt believes that women should
not be seen in bathing suits in public. Sarah and Kathy may challenge the statute
on its face and argue that it is ambiguous. The definition of "inappropriate" is
ambiguous and can vary from person to person. As a result, it gives law
enforcement excessive discretion, is applied unevenly, and fails to adequately
inform Kathy, Sarah, and the general public of what conduct is illegal.
An Illustration of an Unconstitutional Riot Incitement Statute
In order to accomplish industrial or political reform, Ohio passed a law that
made it illegal to "advocate[ing]...the duty, necessity, or propriety of crime,
sabotage, violence, or unlawful methods of terrorism" and to "voluntarily
assembl[e] with any society, group, or assemblage of persons formed to teach or
advocate the doctrines of criminal syndicalism" (Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §
2923.13). A Ku Klux Klan leader was found guilty under the statute after
footage of him presiding over a KKK gathering was shown in the media.
"Therefore, we are faced with a statute that, by its own language and as applied,
purports to punish mere advocacy and to forbid, on pain of criminal
punishment, assembly with others merely to advocate the described type of
action," the US Supreme Court ruled [Footnote 4]. A law like that is prohibited
by the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
An Illustration of a Statute Void for Vagueness
A law that makes "inappropriate attire on public beaches" illegal is passed by
the state legislature. Because Larry, a law enforcement officer, believes that
women should only wear one-piece bathing suits, he arrests Kathy for wearing
two. Two days later, Sarah is arrested by Burt, another police officer, for
wearing a one-piece bathing suit at the beach. Burt believes that women should
not be seen in bathing suits in public. Sarah and Kathy may challenge the statute
on its face and argue that it is ambiguous. The definition of "inappropriate" is
ambiguous and can vary from person to person. As a result, it gives law
enforcement excessive discretion, is applied unevenly, and fails to adequately
inform Kathy, Sarah, and the general public of what conduct is illegal.
An Illustration of an Unconstitutional Riot Incitement Statute
In order to accomplish industrial or political reform, Ohio passed a law that
made it illegal to "advocate[ing]...the duty, necessity, or propriety of crime,
sabotage, violence, or unlawful methods of terrorism" and to "voluntarily
assembl[e] with any society, group, or assemblage of persons formed to teach or
advocate the doctrines of criminal syndicalism" (Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §
2923.13). A Ku Klux Klan leader was found guilty under the statute after
footage of him presiding over a KKK gathering was shown in the media.
"Therefore, we are faced with a statute that, by its own language and as applied,
purports to punish mere advocacy and to forbid, on pain of criminal
punishment, assembly with others merely to advocate the described type of
action," the US Supreme Court ruled [Footnote 4]. A law like that is prohibited
by the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
An Illustration of a Statute Void for Vagueness
A law that makes "inappropriate attire on public beaches" illegal is passed by
the state legislature. Because Larry, a law enforcement officer, believes that
women should only wear one-piece bathing suits, he arrests Kathy for wearing
two. Two days later, Sarah is arrested by Burt, another police officer, for
wearing a one-piece bathing suit at the beach. Burt believes that women should
not be seen in bathing suits in public. Sarah and Kathy may challenge the statute
on its face and argue that it is ambiguous. The definition of "inappropriate" is
ambiguous and can vary from person to person. As a result, it gives law
enforcement excessive discretion, is applied unevenly, and fails to adequately
inform Kathy, Sarah, and the general public of what conduct is illegal.
An Illustration of an Unconstitutional Riot Incitement Statute
In order to accomplish industrial or political reform, Ohio passed a law that
made it illegal to "advocate[ing]...the duty, necessity, or propriety of crime,
sabotage, violence, or unlawful methods of terrorism" and to "voluntarily
assembl[e] with any society, group, or assemblage of persons formed to teach or
advocate the doctrines of criminal syndicalism" (Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §
2923.13). A Ku Klux Klan leader was found guilty under the statute after
footage of him presiding over a KKK gathering was shown in the media.
"Therefore, we are faced with a statute that, by its own language and as applied,
purports to punish mere advocacy and to forbid, on pain of criminal
punishment, assembly with others merely to advocate the described type of
action," the US Supreme Court ruled [Footnote 4]. A law like that is prohibited
by the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
An Illustration of a Statute Void for Vagueness
A law that makes "inappropriate attire on public beaches" illegal is passed by
the state legislature. Because Larry, a law enforcement officer, believes that
women should only wear one-piece bathing suits, he arrests Kathy for wearing
two. Two days later, Sarah is arrested by Burt, another police officer, for
wearing a one-piece bathing suit at the beach. Burt believes that women should
not be seen in bathing suits in public. Sarah and Kathy may challenge the statute
on its face and argue that it is ambiguous. The definition of "inappropriate" is
ambiguous and can vary from person to person. As a result, it gives law
enforcement excessive discretion, is applied unevenly, and fails to adequately
inform Kathy, Sarah, and the general public of what conduct is illegal.
An Illustration of an Unconstitutional Riot Incitement Statute
In order to accomplish industrial or political reform, Ohio passed a law that
made it illegal to "advocate[ing]...the duty, necessity, or propriety of crime,
sabotage, violence, or unlawful methods of terrorism" and to "voluntarily
assembl[e] with any society, group, or assemblage of persons formed to teach or
advocate the doctrines of criminal syndicalism" (Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §
2923.13). A Ku Klux Klan leader was found guilty under the statute after
footage of him presiding over a KKK gathering was shown in the media.
"Therefore, we are faced with a statute that, by its own language and as applied,
purports to punish mere advocacy and to forbid, on pain of criminal
punishment, assembly with others merely to advocate the described type of
action," the US Supreme Court ruled [Footnote 4]. A law like that is prohibited
by the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
An Illustration of a Statute Void for Vagueness
A law that makes "inappropriate attire on public beaches" illegal is passed by
the state legislature. Because Larry, a law enforcement officer, believes that
women should only wear one-piece bathing suits, he arrests Kathy for wearing
two. Two days later, Sarah is arrested by Burt, another police officer, for
wearing a one-piece bathing suit at the beach. Burt believes that women should
not be seen in bathing suits in public. Sarah and Kathy may challenge the statute
on its face and argue that it is ambiguous. The definition of "inappropriate" is
ambiguous and can vary from person to person. As a result, it gives law
enforcement excessive discretion, is applied unevenly, and fails to adequately
inform Kathy, Sarah, and the general public of what conduct is illegal.
An Illustration of an Unconstitutional Riot Incitement Statute
In order to accomplish industrial or political reform, Ohio passed a law that
made it illegal to "advocate[ing]...the duty, necessity, or propriety of crime,
sabotage, violence, or unlawful methods of terrorism" and to "voluntarily
assembl[e] with any society, group, or assemblage of persons formed to teach or
advocate the doctrines of criminal syndicalism" (Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §
2923.13). A Ku Klux Klan leader was found guilty under the statute after
footage of him presiding over a KKK gathering was shown in the media.
"Therefore, we are faced with a statute that, by its own language and as applied,
purports to punish mere advocacy and to forbid, on pain of criminal
punishment, assembly with others merely to advocate the described type of
action," the US Supreme Court ruled [Footnote 4]. A law like that is prohibited
by the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
An Illustration of a Statute Void for Vagueness
A law that makes "inappropriate attire on public beaches" illegal is passed by
the state legislature. Because Larry, a law enforcement officer, believes that
women should only wear one-piece bathing suits, he arrests Kathy for wearing
two. Two days later, Sarah is arrested by Burt, another police officer, for
wearing a one-piece bathing suit at the beach. Burt believes that women should
not be seen in bathing suits in public. Sarah and Kathy may challenge the statute
on its face and argue that it is ambiguous. The definition of "inappropriate" is
ambiguous and can vary from person to person. As a result, it gives law
enforcement excessive discretion, is applied unevenly, and fails to adequately
inform Kathy, Sarah, and the general public of what conduct is illegal.
An Illustration of an Unconstitutional Riot Incitement Statute
In order to accomplish industrial or political reform, Ohio passed a law that
made it illegal to "advocate[ing]...the duty, necessity, or propriety of crime,
sabotage, violence, or unlawful methods of terrorism" and to "voluntarily
assembl[e] with any society, group, or assemblage of persons formed to teach or
advocate the doctrines of criminal syndicalism" (Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §
2923.13). A Ku Klux Klan leader was found guilty under the statute after
footage of him presiding over a KKK gathering was shown in the media.
"Therefore, we are faced with a statute that, by its own language and as applied,
purports to punish mere advocacy and to forbid, on pain of criminal
punishment, assembly with others merely to advocate the described type of
action," the US Supreme Court ruled [Footnote 4]. A law like that is prohibited
by the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
An Illustration of a Statute Void for Vagueness
A law that makes "inappropriate attire on public beaches" illegal is passed by
the state legislature. Because Larry, a law enforcement officer, believes that
women should only wear one-piece bathing suits, he arrests Kathy for wearing
two. Two days later, Sarah is arrested by Burt, another police officer, for
wearing a one-piece bathing suit at the beach. Burt believes that women should
not be seen in bathing suits in public. Sarah and Kathy may challenge the statute
on its face and argue that it is ambiguous. The definition of "inappropriate" is
ambiguous and can vary from person to person. As a result, it gives law
enforcement excessive discretion, is applied unevenly, and fails to adequately
inform Kathy, Sarah, and the general public of what conduct is illegal.
An Illustration of an Unconstitutional Riot Incitement Statute
In order to accomplish industrial or political reform, Ohio passed a law that
made it illegal to "advocate[ing]...the duty, necessity, or propriety of crime,
sabotage, violence, or unlawful methods of terrorism" and to "voluntarily
assembl[e] with any society, group, or assemblage of persons formed to teach or
advocate the doctrines of criminal syndicalism" (Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §
2923.13). A Ku Klux Klan leader was found guilty under the statute after
footage of him presiding over a KKK gathering was shown in the media.
"Therefore, we are faced with a statute that, by its own language and as applied,
purports to punish mere advocacy and to forbid, on pain of criminal
punishment, assembly with others merely to advocate the described type of
action," the US Supreme Court ruled [Footnote 4]. A law like that is prohibited
by the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
An Illustration of a Statute Void for Vagueness
A law that makes "inappropriate attire on public beaches" illegal is passed by
the state legislature. Because Larry, a law enforcement officer, believes that
women should only wear one-piece bathing suits, he arrests Kathy for wearing
two. Two days later, Sarah is arrested by Burt, another police officer, for
wearing a one-piece bathing suit at the beach. Burt believes that women should
not be seen in bathing suits in public. Sarah and Kathy may challenge the statute
on its face and argue that it is ambiguous. The definition of "inappropriate" is
ambiguous and can vary from person to person. As a result, it gives law
enforcement excessive discretion, is applied unevenly, and fails to adequately
inform Kathy, Sarah, and the general public of what conduct is illegal.
An Illustration of an Unconstitutional Riot Incitement Statute
In order to accomplish industrial or political reform, Ohio passed a law that
made it illegal to "advocate[ing]...the duty, necessity, or propriety of crime,
sabotage, violence, or unlawful methods of terrorism" and to "voluntarily
assembl[e] with any society, group, or assemblage of persons formed to teach or
advocate the doctrines of criminal syndicalism" (Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §
2923.13). A Ku Klux Klan leader was found guilty under the statute after
footage of him presiding over a KKK gathering was shown in the media.
"Therefore, we are faced with a statute that, by its own language and as applied,
purports to punish mere advocacy and to forbid, on pain of criminal
punishment, assembly with others merely to advocate the described type of
action," the US Supreme Court ruled [Footnote 4]. A law like that is prohibited
by the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
An Illustration of a Statute Void for Vagueness
A law that makes "inappropriate attire on public beaches" illegal is passed by
the state legislature. Because Larry, a law enforcement officer, believes that
women should only wear one-piece bathing suits, he arrests Kathy for wearing
two. Two days later, Sarah is arrested by Burt, another police officer, for
wearing a one-piece bathing suit at the beach. Burt believes that women should
not be seen in bathing suits in public. Sarah and Kathy may challenge the statute
on its face and argue that it is ambiguous. The definition of "inappropriate" is
ambiguous and can vary from person to person. As a result, it gives law
enforcement excessive discretion, is applied unevenly, and fails to adequately
inform Kathy, Sarah, and the general public of what conduct is illegal.
An Illustration of an Unconstitutional Riot Incitement Statute
In order to accomplish industrial or political reform, Ohio passed a law that
made it illegal to "advocate[ing]...the duty, necessity, or propriety of crime,
sabotage, violence, or unlawful methods of terrorism" and to "voluntarily
assembl[e] with any society, group, or assemblage of persons formed to teach or
advocate the doctrines of criminal syndicalism" (Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §
2923.13). A Ku Klux Klan leader was found guilty under the statute after
footage of him presiding over a KKK gathering was shown in the media.
"Therefore, we are faced with a statute that, by its own language and as applied,
purports to punish mere advocacy and to forbid, on pain of criminal
punishment, assembly with others merely to advocate the described type of
action," the US Supreme Court ruled [Footnote 4]. A law like that is prohibited
by the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
An Illustration of a Statute Void for Vagueness
A law that makes "inappropriate attire on public beaches" illegal is passed by
the state legislature. Because Larry, a law enforcement officer, believes that
women should only wear one-piece bathing suits, he arrests Kathy for wearing
two. Two days later, Sarah is arrested by Burt, another police officer, for
wearing a one-piece bathing suit at the beach. Burt believes that women should
not be seen in bathing suits in public. Sarah and Kathy may challenge the statute
on its face and argue that it is ambiguous. The definition of "inappropriate" is
ambiguous and can vary from person to person. As a result, it gives law
enforcement excessive discretion, is applied unevenly, and fails to adequately
inform Kathy, Sarah, and the general public of what conduct is illegal.
An Illustration of an Unconstitutional Riot Incitement Statute
In order to accomplish industrial or political reform, Ohio passed a law that
made it illegal to "advocate[ing]...the duty, necessity, or propriety of crime,
sabotage, violence, or unlawful methods of terrorism" and to "voluntarily
assembl[e] with any society, group, or assemblage of persons formed to teach or
advocate the doctrines of criminal syndicalism" (Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §
2923.13). A Ku Klux Klan leader was found guilty under the statute after
footage of him presiding over a KKK gathering was shown in the media.
"Therefore, we are faced with a statute that, by its own language and as applied,
purports to punish mere advocacy and to forbid, on pain of criminal
punishment, assembly with others merely to advocate the described type of
action," the US Supreme Court ruled [Footnote 4]. A law like that is prohibited
by the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
An Illustration of a Statute Void for Vagueness
A law that makes "inappropriate attire on public beaches" illegal is passed by
the state legislature. Because Larry, a law enforcement officer, believes that
women should only wear one-piece bathing suits, he arrests Kathy for wearing
two. Two days later, Sarah is arrested by Burt, another police officer, for
wearing a one-piece bathing suit at the beach. Burt believes that women should
not be seen in bathing suits in public. Sarah and Kathy may challenge the statute
on its face and argue that it is ambiguous. The definition of "inappropriate" is
ambiguous and can vary from person to person. As a result, it gives law
enforcement excessive discretion, is applied unevenly, and fails to adequately
inform Kathy, Sarah, and the general public of what conduct is illegal.
An Illustration of an Unconstitutional Riot Incitement Statute
In order to accomplish industrial or political reform, Ohio passed a law that
made it illegal to "advocate[ing]...the duty, necessity, or propriety of crime,
sabotage, violence, or unlawful methods of terrorism" and to "voluntarily
assembl[e] with any society, group, or assemblage of persons formed to teach or
advocate the doctrines of criminal syndicalism" (Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §
2923.13). A Ku Klux Klan leader was found guilty under the statute after
footage of him presiding over a KKK gathering was shown in the media.
"Therefore, we are faced with a statute that, by its own language and as applied,
purports to punish mere advocacy and to forbid, on pain of criminal
punishment, assembly with others merely to advocate the described type of
action," the US Supreme Court ruled [Footnote 4]. A law like that is prohibited
by the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
An Illustration of a Statute Void for Vagueness
A law that makes "inappropriate attire on public beaches" illegal is passed by
the state legislature. Because Larry, a law enforcement officer, believes that
women should only wear one-piece bathing suits, he arrests Kathy for wearing
two. Two days later, Sarah is arrested by Burt, another police officer, for
wearing a one-piece bathing suit at the beach. Burt believes that women should
not be seen in bathing suits in public. Sarah and Kathy may challenge the statute
on its face and argue that it is ambiguous. The definition of "inappropriate" is
ambiguous and can vary from person to person. As a result, it gives law
enforcement excessive discretion, is applied unevenly, and fails to adequately
inform Kathy, Sarah, and the general public of what conduct is illegal.
An Illustration of an Unconstitutional Riot Incitement Statute
In order to accomplish industrial or political reform, Ohio passed a law that
made it illegal to "advocate[ing]...the duty, necessity, or propriety of crime,
sabotage, violence, or unlawful methods of terrorism" and to "voluntarily
assembl[e] with any society, group, or assemblage of persons formed to teach or
advocate the doctrines of criminal syndicalism" (Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §
2923.13). A Ku Klux Klan leader was found guilty under the statute after
footage of him presiding over a KKK gathering was shown in the media.
"Therefore, we are faced with a statute that, by its own language and as applied,
purports to punish mere advocacy and to forbid, on pain of criminal
punishment, assembly with others merely to advocate the described type of
action," the US Supreme Court ruled [Footnote 4]. A law like that is prohibited
by the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
An Illustration of a Statute Void for Vagueness
A law that makes "inappropriate attire on public beaches" illegal is passed by
the state legislature. Because Larry, a law enforcement officer, believes that
women should only wear one-piece bathing suits, he arrests Kathy for wearing
two. Two days later, Sarah is arrested by Burt, another police officer, for
wearing a one-piece bathing suit at the beach. Burt believes that women should
not be seen in bathing suits in public. Sarah and Kathy may challenge the statute
on its face and argue that it is ambiguous. The definition of "inappropriate" is
ambiguous and can vary from person to person. As a result, it gives law
enforcement excessive discretion, is applied unevenly, and fails to adequately
inform Kathy, Sarah, and the general public of what conduct is illegal.
An Illustration of an Unconstitutional Riot Incitement Statute
In order to accomplish industrial or political reform, Ohio passed a law that
made it illegal to "advocate[ing]...the duty, necessity, or propriety of crime,
sabotage, violence, or unlawful methods of terrorism" and to "voluntarily
assembl[e] with any society, group, or assemblage of persons formed to teach or
advocate the doctrines of criminal syndicalism" (Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §
2923.13). A Ku Klux Klan leader was found guilty under the statute after
footage of him presiding over a KKK gathering was shown in the media.
"Therefore, we are faced with a statute that, by its own language and as applied,
purports to punish mere advocacy and to forbid, on pain of criminal
punishment, assembly with others merely to advocate the described type of
action," the US Supreme Court ruled [Footnote 4]. A law like that is prohibited
by the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
An Illustration of a Statute Void for Vagueness
A law that makes "inappropriate attire on public beaches" illegal is passed by
the state legislature. Because Larry, a law enforcement officer, believes that
women should only wear one-piece bathing suits, he arrests Kathy for wearing
two. Two days later, Sarah is arrested by Burt, another police officer, for
wearing a one-piece bathing suit at the beach. Burt believes that women should
not be seen in bathing suits in public. Sarah and Kathy may challenge the statute
on its face and argue that it is ambiguous. The definition of "inappropriate" is
ambiguous and can vary from person to person. As a result, it gives law
enforcement excessive discretion, is applied unevenly, and fails to adequately
inform Kathy, Sarah, and the general public of what conduct is illegal.
An Illustration of an Unconstitutional Riot Incitement Statute
In order to accomplish industrial or political reform, Ohio passed a law that
made it illegal to "advocate[ing]...the duty, necessity, or propriety of crime,
sabotage, violence, or unlawful methods of terrorism" and to "voluntarily
assembl[e] with any society, group, or assemblage of persons formed to teach or
advocate the doctrines of criminal syndicalism" (Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §
2923.13). A Ku Klux Klan leader was found guilty under the statute after
footage of him presiding over a KKK gathering was shown in the media.
"Therefore, we are faced with a statute that, by its own language and as applied,
purports to punish mere advocacy and to forbid, on pain of criminal
punishment, assembly with others merely to advocate the described type of
action," the US Supreme Court ruled [Footnote 4]. A law like that is prohibited
by the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
An Illustration of a Statute Void for Vagueness
A law that makes "inappropriate attire on public beaches" illegal is passed by
the state legislature. Because Larry, a law enforcement officer, believes that
women should only wear one-piece bathing suits, he arrests Kathy for wearing
two. Two days later, Sarah is arrested by Burt, another police officer, for
wearing a one-piece bathing suit at the beach. Burt believes that women should
not be seen in bathing suits in public. Sarah and Kathy may challenge the statute
on its face and argue that it is ambiguous. The definition of "inappropriate" is
ambiguous and can vary from person to person. As a result, it gives law
enforcement excessive discretion, is applied unevenly, and fails to adequately
inform Kathy, Sarah, and the general public of what conduct is illegal.
An Illustration of an Unconstitutional Riot Incitement Statute
In order to accomplish industrial or political reform, Ohio passed a law that
made it illegal to "advocate[ing]...the duty, necessity, or propriety of crime,
sabotage, violence, or unlawful methods of terrorism" and to "voluntarily
assembl[e] with any society, group, or assemblage of persons formed to teach or
advocate the doctrines of criminal syndicalism" (Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §
2923.13). A Ku Klux Klan leader was found guilty under the statute after
footage of him presiding over a KKK gathering was shown in the media.
"Therefore, we are faced with a statute that, by its own language and as applied,
purports to punish mere advocacy and to forbid, on pain of criminal
punishment, assembly with others merely to advocate the described type of
action," the US Supreme Court ruled [Footnote 4]. A law like that is prohibited
by the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
An Illustration of a Statute Void for Vagueness
A law that makes "inappropriate attire on public beaches" illegal is passed by
the state legislature. Because Larry, a law enforcement officer, believes that
women should only wear one-piece bathing suits, he arrests Kathy for wearing
two. Two days later, Sarah is arrested by Burt, another police officer, for
wearing a one-piece bathing suit at the beach. Burt believes that women should
not be seen in bathing suits in public. Sarah and Kathy may challenge the statute
on its face and argue that it is ambiguous. The definition of "inappropriate" is
ambiguous and can vary from person to person. As a result, it gives law
enforcement excessive discretion, is applied unevenly, and fails to adequately
inform Kathy, Sarah, and the general public of what conduct is illegal.
An Illustration of an Unconstitutional Riot Incitement Statute
In order to accomplish industrial or political reform, Ohio passed a law that
made it illegal to "advocate[ing]...the duty, necessity, or propriety of crime,
sabotage, violence, or unlawful methods of terrorism" and to "voluntarily
assembl[e] with any society, group, or assemblage of persons formed to teach or
advocate the doctrines of criminal syndicalism" (Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §
2923.13). A Ku Klux Klan leader was found guilty under the statute after
footage of him presiding over a KKK gathering was shown in the media.
"Therefore, we are faced with a statute that, by its own language and as applied,
purports to punish mere advocacy and to forbid, on pain of criminal
punishment, assembly with others merely to advocate the described type of
action," the US Supreme Court ruled [Footnote 4]. A law like that is prohibited
by the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
An Illustration of a Statute Void for Vagueness
A law that makes "inappropriate attire on public beaches" illegal is passed by
the state legislature. Because Larry, a law enforcement officer, believes that
women should only wear one-piece bathing suits, he arrests Kathy for wearing
two. Two days later, Sarah is arrested by Burt, another police officer, for
wearing a one-piece bathing suit at the beach. Burt believes that women should
not be seen in bathing suits in public. Sarah and Kathy may challenge the statute
on its face and argue that it is ambiguous. The definition of "inappropriate" is
ambiguous and can vary from person to person. As a result, it gives law
enforcement excessive discretion, is applied unevenly, and fails to adequately
inform Kathy, Sarah, and the general public of what conduct is illegal.
An Illustration of an Unconstitutional Riot Incitement Statute
In order to accomplish industrial or political reform, Ohio passed a law that
made it illegal to "advocate[ing]...the duty, necessity, or propriety of crime,
sabotage, violence, or unlawful methods of terrorism" and to "voluntarily
assembl[e] with any society, group, or assemblage of persons formed to teach or
advocate the doctrines of criminal syndicalism" (Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §
2923.13). A Ku Klux Klan leader was found guilty under the statute after
footage of him presiding over a KKK gathering was shown in the media.
"Therefore, we are faced with a statute that, by its own language and as applied,
purports to punish mere advocacy and to forbid, on pain of criminal
punishment, assembly with others merely to advocate the described type of
action," the US Supreme Court ruled [Footnote 4]. A law like that is prohibited
by the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
An Illustration of a Statute Void for Vagueness
A law that makes "inappropriate attire on public beaches" illegal is passed by
the state legislature. Because Larry, a law enforcement officer, believes that
women should only wear one-piece bathing suits, he arrests Kathy for wearing
two. Two days later, Sarah is arrested by Burt, another police officer, for
wearing a one-piece bathing suit at the beach. Burt believes that women should
not be seen in bathing suits in public. Sarah and Kathy may challenge the statute
on its face and argue that it is ambiguous. The definition of "inappropriate" is
ambiguous and can vary from person to person. As a result, it gives law
enforcement excessive discretion, is applied unevenly, and fails to adequately
inform Kathy, Sarah, and the general public of what conduct is illegal.
An Illustration of an Unconstitutional Riot Incitement Statute
In order to accomplish industrial or political reform, Ohio passed a law that
made it illegal to "advocate[ing]...the duty, necessity, or propriety of crime,
sabotage, violence, or unlawful methods of terrorism" and to "voluntarily
assembl[e] with any society, group, or assemblage of persons formed to teach or
advocate the doctrines of criminal syndicalism" (Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §
2923.13). A Ku Klux Klan leader was found guilty under the statute after
footage of him presiding over a KKK gathering was shown in the media.
"Therefore, we are faced with a statute that, by its own language and as applied,
purports to punish mere advocacy and to forbid, on pain of criminal
punishment, assembly with others merely to advocate the described type of
action," the US Supreme Court ruled [Footnote 4]. A law like that is prohibited
by the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
An Illustration of a Statute Void for Vagueness
A law that makes "inappropriate attire on public beaches" illegal is passed by
the state legislature. Because Larry, a law enforcement officer, believes that
women should only wear one-piece bathing suits, he arrests Kathy for wearing
two. Two days later, Sarah is arrested by Burt, another police officer, for
wearing a one-piece bathing suit at the beach. Burt believes that women should
not be seen in bathing suits in public. Sarah and Kathy may challenge the statute
on its face and argue that it is ambiguous. The definition of "inappropriate" is
ambiguous and can vary from person to person. As a result, it gives law
enforcement excessive discretion, is applied unevenly, and fails to adequately
inform Kathy, Sarah, and the general public of what conduct is illegal.
An Illustration of an Unconstitutional Riot Incitement Statute
In order to accomplish industrial or political reform, Ohio passed a law that
made it illegal to "advocate[ing]...the duty, necessity, or propriety of crime,
sabotage, violence, or unlawful methods of terrorism" and to "voluntarily
assembl[e] with any society, group, or assemblage of persons formed to teach or
advocate the doctrines of criminal syndicalism" (Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §
2923.13). A Ku Klux Klan leader was found guilty under the statute after
footage of him presiding over a KKK gathering was shown in the media.
"Therefore, we are faced with a statute that, by its own language and as applied,
purports to punish mere advocacy and to forbid, on pain of criminal
punishment, assembly with others merely to advocate the described type of
action," the US Supreme Court ruled [Footnote 4]. A law like that is prohibited
by the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
An Illustration of a Statute Void for Vagueness
A law that makes "inappropriate attire on public beaches" illegal is passed by
the state legislature. Because Larry, a law enforcement officer, believes that
women should only wear one-piece bathing suits, he arrests Kathy for wearing
two. Two days later, Sarah is arrested by Burt, another police officer, for
wearing a one-piece bathing suit at the beach. Burt believes that women should
not be seen in bathing suits in public. Sarah and Kathy may challenge the statute
on its face and argue that it is ambiguous. The definition of "inappropriate" is
ambiguous and can vary from person to person. As a result, it gives law
enforcement excessive discretion, is applied unevenly, and fails to adequately
inform Kathy, Sarah, and the general public of what conduct is illegal.
An Illustration of an Unconstitutional Riot Incitement Statute
In order to accomplish industrial or political reform, Ohio passed a law that
made it illegal to "advocate[ing]...the duty, necessity, or propriety of crime,
sabotage, violence, or unlawful methods of terrorism" and to "voluntarily
assembl[e] with any society, group, or assemblage of persons formed to teach or
advocate the doctrines of criminal syndicalism" (Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §
2923.13). A Ku Klux Klan leader was found guilty under the statute after
footage of him presiding over a KKK gathering was shown in the media.
"Therefore, we are faced with a statute that, by its own language and as applied,
purports to punish mere advocacy and to forbid, on pain of criminal
punishment, assembly with others merely to advocate the described type of
action," the US Supreme Court ruled [Footnote 4]. A law like that is prohibited
by the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
An Illustration of a Statute Void for Vagueness
A law that makes "inappropriate attire on public beaches" illegal is passed by
the state legislature. Because Larry, a law enforcement officer, believes that
women should only wear one-piece bathing suits, he arrests Kathy for wearing
two. Two days later, Sarah is arrested by Burt, another police officer, for
wearing a one-piece bathing suit at the beach. Burt believes that women should
not be seen in bathing suits in public. Sarah and Kathy may challenge the statute
on its face and argue that it is ambiguous. The definition of "inappropriate" is
ambiguous and can vary from person to person. As a result, it gives law
enforcement excessive discretion, is applied unevenly, and fails to adequately
inform Kathy, Sarah, and the general public of what conduct is illegal.
An Illustration of an Unconstitutional Riot Incitement Statute
In order to accomplish industrial or political reform, Ohio passed a law that
made it illegal to "advocate[ing]...the duty, necessity, or propriety of crime,
sabotage, violence, or unlawful methods of terrorism" and to "voluntarily
assembl[e] with any society, group, or assemblage of persons formed to teach or
advocate the doctrines of criminal syndicalism" (Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §
2923.13). A Ku Klux Klan leader was found guilty under the statute after
footage of him presiding over a KKK gathering was shown in the media.
"Therefore, we are faced with a statute that, by its own language and as applied,
purports to punish mere advocacy and to forbid, on pain of criminal
punishment, assembly with others merely to advocate the described type of
action," the US Supreme Court ruled [Footnote 4]. A law like that is prohibited
by the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
An Illustration of a Statute Void for Vagueness
A law that makes "inappropriate attire on public beaches" illegal is passed by
the state legislature. Because Larry, a law enforcement officer, believes that
women should only wear one-piece bathing suits, he arrests Kathy for wearing
two. Two days later, Sarah is arrested by Burt, another police officer, for
wearing a one-piece bathing suit at the beach. Burt believes that women should
not be seen in bathing suits in public. Sarah and Kathy may challenge the statute
on its face and argue that it is ambiguous. The definition of "inappropriate" is
ambiguous and can vary from person to person. As a result, it gives law
enforcement excessive discretion, is applied unevenly, and fails to adequately
inform Kathy, Sarah, and the general public of what conduct is illegal.
An Illustration of an Unconstitutional Riot Incitement Statute
In order to accomplish industrial or political reform, Ohio passed a law that
made it illegal to "advocate[ing]...the duty, necessity, or propriety of crime,
sabotage, violence, or unlawful methods of terrorism" and to "voluntarily
assembl[e] with any society, group, or assemblage of persons formed to teach or
advocate the doctrines of criminal syndicalism" (Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §
2923.13). A Ku Klux Klan leader was found guilty under the statute after
footage of him presiding over a KKK gathering was shown in the media.
"Therefore, we are faced with a statute that, by its own language and as applied,
purports to punish mere advocacy and to forbid, on pain of criminal
punishment, assembly with others merely to advocate the described type of
action," the US Supreme Court ruled [Footnote 4]. A law like that is prohibited
by the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
An Illustration of a Statute Void for Vagueness
A law that makes "inappropriate attire on public beaches" illegal is passed by
the state legislature. Because Larry, a law enforcement officer, believes that
women should only wear one-piece bathing suits, he arrests Kathy for wearing
two. Two days later, Sarah is arrested by Burt, another police officer, for
wearing a one-piece bathing suit at the beach. Burt believes that women should
not be seen in bathing suits in public. Sarah and Kathy may challenge the statute
on its face and argue that it is ambiguous. The definition of "inappropriate" is
ambiguous and can vary from person to person. As a result, it gives law
enforcement excessive discretion, is applied unevenly, and fails to adequately
inform Kathy, Sarah, and the general public of what conduct is illegal.
An Illustration of an Unconstitutional Riot Incitement Statute
In order to accomplish industrial or political reform, Ohio passed a law that
made it illegal to "advocate[ing]...the duty, necessity, or propriety of crime,
sabotage, violence, or unlawful methods of terrorism" and to "voluntarily
assembl[e] with any society, group, or assemblage of persons formed to teach or
advocate the doctrines of criminal syndicalism" (Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §
2923.13). A Ku Klux Klan leader was found guilty under the statute after
footage of him presiding over a KKK gathering was shown in the media.
"Therefore, we are faced with a statute that, by its own language and as applied,
purports to punish mere advocacy and to forbid, on pain of criminal
punishment, assembly with others merely to advocate the described type of
action," the US Supreme Court ruled [Footnote 4]. A law like that is prohibited
by the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
An Illustration of a Statute Void for Vagueness
A law that makes "inappropriate attire on public beaches" illegal is passed by
the state legislature. Because Larry, a law enforcement officer, believes that
women should only wear one-piece bathing suits, he arrests Kathy for wearing
two. Two days later, Sarah is arrested by Burt, another police officer, for
wearing a one-piece bathing suit at the beach. Burt believes that women should
not be seen in bathing suits in public. Sarah and Kathy may challenge the statute
on its face and argue that it is ambiguous. The definition of "inappropriate" is
ambiguous and can vary from person to person. As a result, it gives law
enforcement excessive discretion, is applied unevenly, and fails to adequately
inform Kathy, Sarah, and the general public of what conduct is illegal.
An Illustration of an Unconstitutional Riot Incitement Statute
In order to accomplish industrial or political reform, Ohio passed a law that
made it illegal to "advocate[ing]...the duty, necessity, or propriety of crime,
sabotage, violence, or unlawful methods of terrorism" and to "voluntarily
assembl[e] with any society, group, or assemblage of persons formed to teach or
advocate the doctrines of criminal syndicalism" (Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §
2923.13). A Ku Klux Klan leader was found guilty under the statute after
footage of him presiding over a KKK gathering was shown in the media.
"Therefore, we are faced with a statute that, by its own language and as applied,
purports to punish mere advocacy and to forbid, on pain of criminal
punishment, assembly with others merely to advocate the described type of
action," the US Supreme Court ruled [Footnote 4]. A law like that is prohibited
by the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
An Illustration of a Statute Void for Vagueness
A law that makes "inappropriate attire on public beaches" illegal is passed by
the state legislature. Because Larry, a law enforcement officer, believes that
women should only wear one-piece bathing suits, he arrests Kathy for wearing
two. Two days later, Sarah is arrested by Burt, another police officer, for
wearing a one-piece bathing suit at the beach. Burt believes that women should
not be seen in bathing suits in public. Sarah and Kathy may challenge the statute
on its face and argue that it is ambiguous. The definition of "inappropriate" is
ambiguous and can vary from person to person. As a result, it gives law
enforcement excessive discretion, is applied unevenly, and fails to adequately
inform Kathy, Sarah, and the general public of what conduct is illegal.
An Illustration of an Unconstitutional Riot Incitement Statute
In order to accomplish industrial or political reform, Ohio passed a law that
made it illegal to "advocate[ing]...the duty, necessity, or propriety of crime,
sabotage, violence, or unlawful methods of terrorism" and to "voluntarily
assembl[e] with any society, group, or assemblage of persons formed to teach or
advocate the doctrines of criminal syndicalism" (Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §
2923.13). A Ku Klux Klan leader was found guilty under the statute after
footage of him presiding over a KKK gathering was shown in the media.
"Therefore, we are faced with a statute that, by its own language and as applied,
purports to punish mere advocacy and to forbid, on pain of criminal
punishment, assembly with others merely to advocate the described type of
action," the US Supreme Court ruled [Footnote 4]. A law like that is prohibited
by the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
An Illustration of a Statute Void for Vagueness
A law that makes "inappropriate attire on public beaches" illegal is passed by
the state legislature. Because Larry, a law enforcement officer, believes that
women should only wear one-piece bathing suits, he arrests Kathy for wearing
two. Two days later, Sarah is arrested by Burt, another police officer, for
wearing a one-piece bathing suit at the beach. Burt believes that women should
not be seen in bathing suits in public. Sarah and Kathy may challenge the statute
on its face and argue that it is ambiguous. The definition of "inappropriate" is
ambiguous and can vary from person to person. As a result, it gives law
enforcement excessive discretion, is applied unevenly, and fails to adequately
inform Kathy, Sarah, and the general public of what conduct is illegal.
An Illustration of an Unconstitutional Riot Incitement Statute
In order to accomplish industrial or political reform, Ohio passed a law that
made it illegal to "advocate[ing]...the duty, necessity, or propriety of crime,
sabotage, violence, or unlawful methods of terrorism" and to "voluntarily
assembl[e] with any society, group, or assemblage of persons formed to teach or
advocate the doctrines of criminal syndicalism" (Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §
2923.13). A Ku Klux Klan leader was found guilty under the statute after
footage of him presiding over a KKK gathering was shown in the media.
"Therefore, we are faced with a statute that, by its own language and as applied,
purports to punish mere advocacy and to forbid, on pain of criminal
punishment, assembly with others merely to advocate the described type of
action," the US Supreme Court ruled [Footnote 4]. A law like that is prohibited
by the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
An Illustration of a Statute Void for Vagueness
A law that makes "inappropriate attire on public beaches" illegal is passed by
the state legislature. Because Larry, a law enforcement officer, believes that
women should only wear one-piece bathing suits, he arrests Kathy for wearing
two. Two days later, Sarah is arrested by Burt, another police officer, for
wearing a one-piece bathing suit at the beach. Burt believes that women should
not be seen in bathing suits in public. Sarah and Kathy may challenge the statute
on its face and argue that it is ambiguous. The definition of "inappropriate" is
ambiguous and can vary from person to person. As a result, it gives law
enforcement excessive discretion, is applied unevenly, and fails to adequately
inform Kathy, Sarah, and the general public of what conduct is illegal.
An Illustration of an Unconstitutional Riot Incitement Statute
In order to accomplish industrial or political reform, Ohio passed a law that
made it illegal to "advocate[ing]...the duty, necessity, or propriety of crime,
sabotage, violence, or unlawful methods of terrorism" and to "voluntarily
assembl[e] with any society, group, or assemblage of persons formed to teach or
advocate the doctrines of criminal syndicalism" (Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §
2923.13). A Ku Klux Klan leader was found guilty under the statute after
footage of him presiding over a KKK gathering was shown in the media.
"Therefore, we are faced with a statute that, by its own language and as applied,
purports to punish mere advocacy and to forbid, on pain of criminal
punishment, assembly with others merely to advocate the described type of
action," the US Supreme Court ruled [Footnote 4]. A law like that is prohibited
by the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
An Illustration of a Statute Void for Vagueness
A law that makes "inappropriate attire on public beaches" illegal is passed by
the state legislature. Because Larry, a law enforcement officer, believes that
women should only wear one-piece bathing suits, he arrests Kathy for wearing
two. Two days later, Sarah is arrested by Burt, another police officer, for
wearing a one-piece bathing suit at the beach. Burt believes that women should
not be seen in bathing suits in public. Sarah and Kathy may challenge the statute
on its face and argue that it is ambiguous. The definition of "inappropriate" is
ambiguous and can vary from person to person. As a result, it gives law
enforcement excessive discretion, is applied unevenly, and fails to adequately
inform Kathy, Sarah, and the general public of what conduct is illegal.
An Illustration of an Unconstitutional Riot Incitement Statute
In order to accomplish industrial or political reform, Ohio passed a law that
made it illegal to "advocate[ing]...the duty, necessity, or propriety of crime,
sabotage, violence, or unlawful methods of terrorism" and to "voluntarily
assembl[e] with any society, group, or assemblage of persons formed to teach or
advocate the doctrines of criminal syndicalism" (Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §
2923.13). A Ku Klux Klan leader was found guilty under the statute after
footage of him presiding over a KKK gathering was shown in the media.
"Therefore, we are faced with a statute that, by its own language and as applied,
purports to punish mere advocacy and to forbid, on pain of criminal
punishment, assembly with others merely to advocate the described type of
action," the US Supreme Court ruled [Footnote 4]. A law like that is prohibited
by the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
An Illustration of a Statute Void for Vagueness
A law that makes "inappropriate attire on public beaches" illegal is passed by
the state legislature. Because Larry, a law enforcement officer, believes that
women should only wear one-piece bathing suits, he arrests Kathy for wearing
two. Two days later, Sarah is arrested by Burt, another police officer, for
wearing a one-piece bathing suit at the beach. Burt believes that women should
not be seen in bathing suits in public. Sarah and Kathy may challenge the statute
on its face and argue that it is ambiguous. The definition of "inappropriate" is
ambiguous and can vary from person to person. As a result, it gives law
enforcement excessive discretion, is applied unevenly, and fails to adequately
inform Kathy, Sarah, and the general public of what conduct is illegal.
An Illustration of an Unconstitutional Riot Incitement Statute
In order to accomplish industrial or political reform, Ohio passed a law that
made it illegal to "advocate[ing]...the duty, necessity, or propriety of crime,
sabotage, violence, or unlawful methods of terrorism" and to "voluntarily
assembl[e] with any society, group, or assemblage of persons formed to teach or
advocate the doctrines of criminal syndicalism" (Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §
2923.13). A Ku Klux Klan leader was found guilty under the statute after
footage of him presiding over a KKK gathering was shown in the media.
"Therefore, we are faced with a statute that, by its own language and as applied,
purports to punish mere advocacy and to forbid, on pain of criminal
punishment, assembly with others merely to advocate the described type of
action," the US Supreme Court ruled [Footnote 4]. A law like that is prohibited
by the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
An Illustration of a Statute Void for Vagueness
A law that makes "inappropriate attire on public beaches" illegal is passed by
the state legislature. Because Larry, a law enforcement officer, believes that
women should only wear one-piece bathing suits, he arrests Kathy for wearing
two. Two days later, Sarah is arrested by Burt, another police officer, for
wearing a one-piece bathing suit at the beach. Burt believes that women should
not be seen in bathing suits in public. Sarah and Kathy may challenge the statute
on its face and argue that it is ambiguous. The definition of "inappropriate" is
ambiguous and can vary from person to person. As a result, it gives law
enforcement excessive discretion, is applied unevenly, and fails to adequately
inform Kathy, Sarah, and the general public of what conduct is illegal.
An Illustration of an Unconstitutional Riot Incitement Statute
In order to accomplish industrial or political reform, Ohio passed a law that
made it illegal to "advocate[ing]...the duty, necessity, or propriety of crime,
sabotage, violence, or unlawful methods of terrorism" and to "voluntarily
assembl[e] with any society, group, or assemblage of persons formed to teach or
advocate the doctrines of criminal syndicalism" (Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §
2923.13). A Ku Klux Klan leader was found guilty under the statute after
footage of him presiding over a KKK gathering was shown in the media.
"Therefore, we are faced with a statute that, by its own language and as applied,
purports to punish mere advocacy and to forbid, on pain of criminal
punishment, assembly with others merely to advocate the described type of
action," the US Supreme Court ruled [Footnote 4]. A law like that is prohibited
by the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
An Illustration of a Statute Void for Vagueness
A law that makes "inappropriate attire on public beaches" illegal is passed by
the state legislature. Because Larry, a law enforcement officer, believes that
women should only wear one-piece bathing suits, he arrests Kathy for wearing
two. Two days later, Sarah is arrested by Burt, another police officer, for
wearing a one-piece bathing suit at the beach. Burt believes that women should
not be seen in bathing suits in public. Sarah and Kathy may challenge the statute
on its face and argue that it is ambiguous. The definition of "inappropriate" is
ambiguous and can vary from person to person. As a result, it gives law
enforcement excessive discretion, is applied unevenly, and fails to adequately
inform Kathy, Sarah, and the general public of what conduct is illegal.
An Illustration of an Unconstitutional Riot Incitement Statute
In order to accomplish industrial or political reform, Ohio passed a law that
made it illegal to "advocate[ing]...the duty, necessity, or propriety of crime,
sabotage, violence, or unlawful methods of terrorism" and to "voluntarily
assembl[e] with any society, group, or assemblage of persons formed to teach or
advocate the doctrines of criminal syndicalism" (Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §
2923.13). A Ku Klux Klan leader was found guilty under the statute after
footage of him presiding over a KKK gathering was shown in the media.
"Therefore, we are faced with a statute that, by its own language and as applied,
purports to punish mere advocacy and to forbid, on pain of criminal
punishment, assembly with others merely to advocate the described type of
action," the US Supreme Court ruled [Footnote 4]. A law like that is prohibited
by the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
An Illustration of a Statute Void for Vagueness
A law that makes "inappropriate attire on public beaches" illegal is passed by
the state legislature. Because Larry, a law enforcement officer, believes that
women should only wear one-piece bathing suits, he arrests Kathy for wearing
two. Two days later, Sarah is arrested by Burt, another police officer, for
wearing a one-piece bathing suit at the beach. Burt believes that women should
not be seen in bathing suits in public. Sarah and Kathy may challenge the statute
on its face and argue that it is ambiguous. The definition of "inappropriate" is
ambiguous and can vary from person to person. As a result, it gives law
enforcement excessive discretion, is applied unevenly, and fails to adequately
inform Kathy, Sarah, and the general public of what conduct is illegal.
An Illustration of an Unconstitutional Riot Incitement Statute
In order to accomplish industrial or political reform, Ohio passed a law that
made it illegal to "advocate[ing]...the duty, necessity, or propriety of crime,
sabotage, violence, or unlawful methods of terrorism" and to "voluntarily
assembl[e] with any society, group, or assemblage of persons formed to teach or
advocate the doctrines of criminal syndicalism" (Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §
2923.13). A Ku Klux Klan leader was found guilty under the statute after
footage of him presiding over a KKK gathering was shown in the media.
"Therefore, we are faced with a statute that, by its own language and as applied,
purports to punish mere advocacy and to forbid, on pain of criminal
punishment, assembly with others merely to advocate the described type of
action," the US Supreme Court ruled [Footnote 4]. A law like that is prohibited
by the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
An Illustration of a Statute Void for Vagueness
A law that makes "inappropriate attire on public beaches" illegal is passed by
the state legislature. Because Larry, a law enforcement officer, believes that
women should only wear one-piece bathing suits, he arrests Kathy for wearing
two. Two days later, Sarah is arrested by Burt, another police officer, for
wearing a one-piece bathing suit at the beach. Burt believes that women should
not be seen in bathing suits in public. Sarah and Kathy may challenge the statute
on its face and argue that it is ambiguous. The definition of "inappropriate" is
ambiguous and can vary from person to person. As a result, it gives law
enforcement excessive discretion, is applied unevenly, and fails to adequately
inform Kathy, Sarah, and the general public of what conduct is illegal.
An Illustration of an Unconstitutional Riot Incitement Statute
In order to accomplish industrial or political reform, Ohio passed a law that
made it illegal to "advocate[ing]...the duty, necessity, or propriety of crime,
sabotage, violence, or unlawful methods of terrorism" and to "voluntarily
assembl[e] with any society, group, or assemblage of persons formed to teach or
advocate the doctrines of criminal syndicalism" (Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §
2923.13). A Ku Klux Klan leader was found guilty under the statute after
footage of him presiding over a KKK gathering was shown in the media.
"Therefore, we are faced with a statute that, by its own language and as applied,
purports to punish mere advocacy and to forbid, on pain of criminal
punishment, assembly with others merely to advocate the described type of
action," the US Supreme Court ruled [Footnote 4]. A law like that is prohibited
by the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
An Illustration of a Statute Void for Vagueness
A law that makes "inappropriate attire on public beaches" illegal is passed by
the state legislature. Because Larry, a law enforcement officer, believes that
women should only wear one-piece bathing suits, he arrests Kathy for wearing
two. Two days later, Sarah is arrested by Burt, another police officer, for
wearing a one-piece bathing suit at the beach. Burt believes that women should
not be seen in bathing suits in public. Sarah and Kathy may challenge the statute
on its face and argue that it is ambiguous. The definition of "inappropriate" is
ambiguous and can vary from person to person. As a result, it gives law
enforcement excessive discretion, is applied unevenly, and fails to adequately
inform Kathy, Sarah, and the general public of what conduct is illegal.
An Illustration of an Unconstitutional Riot Incitement Statute
In order to accomplish industrial or political reform, Ohio passed a law that
made it illegal to "advocate[ing]...the duty, necessity, or propriety of crime,
sabotage, violence, or unlawful methods of terrorism" and to "voluntarily
assembl[e] with any society, group, or assemblage of persons formed to teach or
advocate the doctrines of criminal syndicalism" (Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §
2923.13). A Ku Klux Klan leader was found guilty under the statute after
footage of him presiding over a KKK gathering was shown in the media.
"Therefore, we are faced with a statute that, by its own language and as applied,
purports to punish mere advocacy and to forbid, on pain of criminal
punishment, assembly with others merely to advocate the described type of
action," the US Supreme Court ruled [Footnote 4]. A law like that is prohibited
by the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
An Illustration of a Statute Void for Vagueness
A law that makes "inappropriate attire on public beaches" illegal is passed by
the state legislature. Because Larry, a law enforcement officer, believes that
women should only wear one-piece bathing suits, he arrests Kathy for wearing
two. Two days later, Sarah is arrested by Burt, another police officer, for
wearing a one-piece bathing suit at the beach. Burt believes that women should
not be seen in bathing suits in public. Sarah and Kathy may challenge the statute
on its face and argue that it is ambiguous. The definition of "inappropriate" is
ambiguous and can vary from person to person. As a result, it gives law
enforcement excessive discretion, is applied unevenly, and fails to adequately
inform Kathy, Sarah, and the general public of what conduct is illegal.
An Illustration of an Unconstitutional Riot Incitement Statute
In order to accomplish industrial or political reform, Ohio passed a law that
made it illegal to "advocate[ing]...the duty, necessity, or propriety of crime,
sabotage, violence, or unlawful methods of terrorism" and to "voluntarily
assembl[e] with any society, group, or assemblage of persons formed to teach or
advocate the doctrines of criminal syndicalism" (Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §
2923.13). A Ku Klux Klan leader was found guilty under the statute after
footage of him presiding over a KKK gathering was shown in the media.
"Therefore, we are faced with a statute that, by its own language and as applied,
purports to punish mere advocacy and to forbid, on pain of criminal
punishment, assembly with others merely to advocate the described type of
action," the US Supreme Court ruled [Footnote 4]. A law like that is prohibited
by the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
An Illustration of a Statute Void for Vagueness
A law that makes "inappropriate attire on public beaches" illegal is passed by
the state legislature. Because Larry, a law enforcement officer, believes that
women should only wear one-piece bathing suits, he arrests Kathy for wearing
two. Two days later, Sarah is arrested by Burt, another police officer, for
wearing a one-piece bathing suit at the beach. Burt believes that women should
not be seen in bathing suits in public. Sarah and Kathy may challenge the statute
on its face and argue that it is ambiguous. The definition of "inappropriate" is
ambiguous and can vary from person to person. As a result, it gives law
enforcement excessive discretion, is applied unevenly, and fails to adequately
inform Kathy, Sarah, and the general public of what conduct is illegal.
An Illustration of an Unconstitutional Riot Incitement Statute
In order to accomplish industrial or political reform, Ohio passed a law that
made it illegal to "advocate[ing]...the duty, necessity, or propriety of crime,
sabotage, violence, or unlawful methods of terrorism" and to "voluntarily
assembl[e] with any society, group, or assemblage of persons formed to teach or
advocate the doctrines of criminal syndicalism" (Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §
2923.13). A Ku Klux Klan leader was found guilty under the statute after
footage of him presiding over a KKK gathering was shown in the media.
"Therefore, we are faced with a statute that, by its own language and as applied,
purports to punish mere advocacy and to forbid, on pain of criminal
punishment, assembly with others merely to advocate the described type of
action," the US Supreme Court ruled [Footnote 4]. A law like that is prohibited
by the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
An Illustration of a Statute Void for Vagueness
A law that makes "inappropriate attire on public beaches" illegal is passed by
the state legislature. Because Larry, a law enforcement officer, believes that
women should only wear one-piece bathing suits, he arrests Kathy for wearing
two. Two days later, Sarah is arrested by Burt, another police officer, for
wearing a one-piece bathing suit at the beach. Burt believes that women should
not be seen in bathing suits in public. Sarah and Kathy may challenge the statute
on its face and argue that it is ambiguous. The definition of "inappropriate" is
ambiguous and can vary from person to person. As a result, it gives law
enforcement excessive discretion, is applied unevenly, and fails to adequately
inform Kathy, Sarah, and the general public of what conduct is illegal.
An Illustration of an Unconstitutional Riot Incitement Statute
In order to accomplish industrial or political reform, Ohio passed a law that
made it illegal to "advocate[ing]...the duty, necessity, or propriety of crime,
sabotage, violence, or unlawful methods of terrorism" and to "voluntarily
assembl[e] with any society, group, or assemblage of persons formed to teach or
advocate the doctrines of criminal syndicalism" (Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §
2923.13). A Ku Klux Klan leader was found guilty under the statute after
footage of him presiding over a KKK gathering was shown in the media.
"Therefore, we are faced with a statute that, by its own language and as applied,
purports to punish mere advocacy and to forbid, on pain of criminal
punishment, assembly with others merely to advocate the described type of
action," the US Supreme Court ruled [Footnote 4]. A law like that is prohibited
by the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
An Illustration of a Statute Void for Vagueness
A law that makes "inappropriate attire on public beaches" illegal is passed by
the state legislature. Because Larry, a law enforcement officer, believes that
women should only wear one-piece bathing suits, he arrests Kathy for wearing
two. Two days later, Sarah is arrested by Burt, another police officer, for
wearing a one-piece bathing suit at the beach. Burt believes that women should
not be seen in bathing suits in public. Sarah and Kathy may challenge the statute
on its face and argue that it is ambiguous. The definition of "inappropriate" is
ambiguous and can vary from person to person. As a result, it gives law
enforcement excessive discretion, is applied unevenly, and fails to adequately
inform Kathy, Sarah, and the general public of what conduct is illegal.
An Illustration of an Unconstitutional Riot Incitement Statute
In order to accomplish industrial or political reform, Ohio passed a law that
made it illegal to "advocate[ing]...the duty, necessity, or propriety of crime,
sabotage, violence, or unlawful methods of terrorism" and to "voluntarily
assembl[e] with any society, group, or assemblage of persons formed to teach or
advocate the doctrines of criminal syndicalism" (Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §
2923.13). A Ku Klux Klan leader was found guilty under the statute after
footage of him presiding over a KKK gathering was shown in the media.
"Therefore, we are faced with a statute that, by its own language and as applied,
purports to punish mere advocacy and to forbid, on pain of criminal
punishment, assembly with others merely to advocate the described type of
action," the US Supreme Court ruled [Footnote 4]. A law like that is prohibited
by the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
An Illustration of a Statute Void for Vagueness
A law that makes "inappropriate attire on public beaches" illegal is passed by
the state legislature. Because Larry, a law enforcement officer, believes that
women should only wear one-piece bathing suits, he arrests Kathy for wearing
two. Two days later, Sarah is arrested by Burt, another police officer, for
wearing a one-piece bathing suit at the beach. Burt believes that women should
not be seen in bathing suits in public. Sarah and Kathy may challenge the statute
on its face and argue that it is ambiguous. The definition of "inappropriate" is
ambiguous and can vary from person to person. As a result, it gives law
enforcement excessive discretion, is applied unevenly, and fails to adequately
inform Kathy, Sarah, and the general public of what conduct is illegal.
An Illustration of an Unconstitutional Riot Incitement Statute
In order to accomplish industrial or political reform, Ohio passed a law that
made it illegal to "advocate[ing]...the duty, necessity, or propriety of crime,
sabotage, violence, or unlawful methods of terrorism" and to "voluntarily
assembl[e] with any society, group, or assemblage of persons formed to teach or
advocate the doctrines of criminal syndicalism" (Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §
2923.13). A Ku Klux Klan leader was found guilty under the statute after
footage of him presiding over a KKK gathering was shown in the media.
"Therefore, we are faced with a statute that, by its own language and as applied,
purports to punish mere advocacy and to forbid, on pain of criminal
punishment, assembly with others merely to advocate the described type of
action," the US Supreme Court ruled [Footnote 4]. A law like that is prohibited
by the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
An Illustration of a Statute Void for Vagueness
A law that makes "inappropriate attire on public beaches" illegal is passed by
the state legislature. Because Larry, a law enforcement officer, believes that
women should only wear one-piece bathing suits, he arrests Kathy for wearing
two. Two days later, Sarah is arrested by Burt, another police officer, for
wearing a one-piece bathing suit at the beach. Burt believes that women should
not be seen in bathing suits in public. Sarah and Kathy may challenge the statute
on its face and argue that it is ambiguous. The definition of "inappropriate" is
ambiguous and can vary from person to person. As a result, it gives law
enforcement excessive discretion, is applied unevenly, and fails to adequately
inform Kathy, Sarah, and the general public of what conduct is illegal.
An Illustration of an Unconstitutional Riot Incitement Statute
In order to accomplish industrial or political reform, Ohio passed a law that
made it illegal to "advocate[ing]...the duty, necessity, or propriety of crime,
sabotage, violence, or unlawful methods of terrorism" and to "voluntarily
assembl[e] with any society, group, or assemblage of persons formed to teach or
advocate the doctrines of criminal syndicalism" (Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §
2923.13). A Ku Klux Klan leader was found guilty under the statute after
footage of him presiding over a KKK gathering was shown in the media.
"Therefore, we are faced with a statute that, by its own language and as applied,
purports to punish mere advocacy and to forbid, on pain of criminal
punishment, assembly with others merely to advocate the described type of
action," the US Supreme Court ruled [Footnote 4]. A law like that is prohibited
by the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
An Illustration of a Statute Void for Vagueness
A law that makes "inappropriate attire on public beaches" illegal is passed by
the state legislature. Because Larry, a law enforcement officer, believes that
women should only wear one-piece bathing suits, he arrests Kathy for wearing
two. Two days later, Sarah is arrested by Burt, another police officer, for
wearing a one-piece bathing suit at the beach. Burt believes that women should
not be seen in bathing suits in public. Sarah and Kathy may challenge the statute
on its face and argue that it is ambiguous. The definition of "inappropriate" is
ambiguous and can vary from person to person. As a result, it gives law
enforcement excessive discretion, is applied unevenly, and fails to adequately
inform Kathy, Sarah, and the general public of what conduct is illegal.
An Illustration of an Unconstitutional Riot Incitement Statute
In order to accomplish industrial or political reform, Ohio passed a law that
made it illegal to "advocate[ing]...the duty, necessity, or propriety of crime,
sabotage, violence, or unlawful methods of terrorism" and to "voluntarily
assembl[e] with any society, group, or assemblage of persons formed to teach or
advocate the doctrines of criminal syndicalism" (Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §
2923.13). A Ku Klux Klan leader was found guilty under the statute after
footage of him presiding over a KKK gathering was shown in the media.
"Therefore, we are faced with a statute that, by its own language and as applied,
purports to punish mere advocacy and to forbid, on pain of criminal
punishment, assembly with others merely to advocate the described type of
action," the US Supreme Court ruled [Footnote 4]. A law like that is prohibited
by the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
An Illustration of a Statute Void for Vagueness
A law that makes "inappropriate attire on public beaches" illegal is passed by
the state legislature. Because Larry, a law enforcement officer, believes that
women should only wear one-piece bathing suits, he arrests Kathy for wearing
two. Two days later, Sarah is arrested by Burt, another police officer, for
wearing a one-piece bathing suit at the beach. Burt believes that women should
not be seen in bathing suits in public. Sarah and Kathy may challenge the statute
on its face and argue that it is ambiguous. The definition of "inappropriate" is
ambiguous and can vary from person to person. As a result, it gives law
enforcement excessive discretion, is applied unevenly, and fails to adequately
inform Kathy, Sarah, and the general public of what conduct is illegal.
An Illustration of an Unconstitutional Riot Incitement Statute
In order to accomplish industrial or political reform, Ohio passed a law that
made it illegal to "advocate[ing]...the duty, necessity, or propriety of crime,
sabotage, violence, or unlawful methods of terrorism" and to "voluntarily
assembl[e] with any society, group, or assemblage of persons formed to teach or
advocate the doctrines of criminal syndicalism" (Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §
2923.13). A Ku Klux Klan leader was found guilty under the statute after
footage of him presiding over a KKK gathering was shown in the media.
"Therefore, we are faced with a statute that, by its own language and as applied,
purports to punish mere advocacy and to forbid, on pain of criminal
punishment, assembly with others merely to advocate the described type of
action," the US Supreme Court ruled [Footnote 4]. A law like that is prohibited
by the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
An Illustration of a Statute Void for Vagueness
A law that makes "inappropriate attire on public beaches" illegal is passed by
the state legislature. Because Larry, a law enforcement officer, believes that
women should only wear one-piece bathing suits, he arrests Kathy for wearing
two. Two days later, Sarah is arrested by Burt, another police officer, for
wearing a one-piece bathing suit at the beach. Burt believes that women should
not be seen in bathing suits in public. Sarah and Kathy may challenge the statute
on its face and argue that it is ambiguous. The definition of "inappropriate" is
ambiguous and can vary from person to person. As a result, it gives law
enforcement excessive discretion, is applied unevenly, and fails to adequately
inform Kathy, Sarah, and the general public of what conduct is illegal.
An Illustration of an Unconstitutional Riot Incitement Statute
In order to accomplish industrial or political reform, Ohio passed a law that
made it illegal to "advocate[ing]...the duty, necessity, or propriety of crime,
sabotage, violence, or unlawful methods of terrorism" and to "voluntarily
assembl[e] with any society, group, or assemblage of persons formed to teach or
advocate the doctrines of criminal syndicalism" (Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §
2923.13). A Ku Klux Klan leader was found guilty under the statute after
footage of him presiding over a KKK gathering was shown in the media.
"Therefore, we are faced with a statute that, by its own language and as applied,
purports to punish mere advocacy and to forbid, on pain of criminal
punishment, assembly with others merely to advocate the described type of
action," the US Supreme Court ruled [Footnote 4]. A law like that is prohibited
by the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
An Illustration of a Statute Void for Vagueness
A law that makes "inappropriate attire on public beaches" illegal is passed by
the state legislature. Because Larry, a law enforcement officer, believes that
women should only wear one-piece bathing suits, he arrests Kathy for wearing
two. Two days later, Sarah is arrested by Burt, another police officer, for
wearing a one-piece bathing suit at the beach. Burt believes that women should
not be seen in bathing suits in public. Sarah and Kathy may challenge the statute
on its face and argue that it is ambiguous. The definition of "inappropriate" is
ambiguous and can vary from person to person. As a result, it gives law
enforcement excessive discretion, is applied unevenly, and fails to adequately
inform Kathy, Sarah, and the general public of what conduct is illegal.
An Illustration of an Unconstitutional Riot Incitement Statute
In order to accomplish industrial or political reform, Ohio passed a law that
made it illegal to "advocate[ing]...the duty, necessity, or propriety of crime,
sabotage, violence, or unlawful methods of terrorism" and to "voluntarily
assembl[e] with any society, group, or assemblage of persons formed to teach or
advocate the doctrines of criminal syndicalism" (Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §
2923.13). A Ku Klux Klan leader was found guilty under the statute after
footage of him presiding over a KKK gathering was shown in the media.
"Therefore, we are faced with a statute that, by its own language and as applied,
purports to punish mere advocacy and to forbid, on pain of criminal
punishment, assembly with others merely to advocate the described type of
action," the US Supreme Court ruled [Footnote 4]. A law like that is prohibited
by the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
An Illustration of a Statute Void for Vagueness
A law that makes "inappropriate attire on public beaches" illegal is passed by
the state legislature. Because Larry, a law enforcement officer, believes that
women should only wear one-piece bathing suits, he arrests Kathy for wearing
two. Two days later, Sarah is arrested by Burt, another police officer, for
wearing a one-piece bathing suit at the beach. Burt believes that women should
not be seen in bathing suits in public. Sarah and Kathy may challenge the statute
on its face and argue that it is ambiguous. The definition of "inappropriate" is
ambiguous and can vary from person to person. As a result, it gives law
enforcement excessive discretion, is applied unevenly, and fails to adequately
inform Kathy, Sarah, and the general public of what conduct is illegal.
An Illustration of an Unconstitutional Riot Incitement Statute
In order to accomplish industrial or political reform, Ohio passed a law that
made it illegal to "advocate[ing]...the duty, necessity, or propriety of crime,
sabotage, violence, or unlawful methods of terrorism" and to "voluntarily
assembl[e] with any society, group, or assemblage of persons formed to teach or
advocate the doctrines of criminal syndicalism" (Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §
2923.13). A Ku Klux Klan leader was found guilty under the statute after
footage of him presiding over a KKK gathering was shown in the media.
"Therefore, we are faced with a statute that, by its own language and as applied,
purports to punish mere advocacy and to forbid, on pain of criminal
punishment, assembly with others merely to advocate the described type of
action," the US Supreme Court ruled [Footnote 4]. A law like that is prohibited
by the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
An Illustration of a Statute Void for Vagueness
A law that makes "inappropriate attire on public beaches" illegal is passed by
the state legislature. Because Larry, a law enforcement officer, believes that
women should only wear one-piece bathing suits, he arrests Kathy for wearing
two. Two days later, Sarah is arrested by Burt, another police officer, for
wearing a one-piece bathing suit at the beach. Burt believes that women should
not be seen in bathing suits in public. Sarah and Kathy may challenge the statute
on its face and argue that it is ambiguous. The definition of "inappropriate" is
ambiguous and can vary from person to person. As a result, it gives law
enforcement excessive discretion, is applied unevenly, and fails to adequately
inform Kathy, Sarah, and the general public of what conduct is illegal.
An Illustration of an Unconstitutional Riot Incitement Statute
In order to accomplish industrial or political reform, Ohio passed a law that
made it illegal to "advocate[ing]...the duty, necessity, or propriety of crime,
sabotage, violence, or unlawful methods of terrorism" and to "voluntarily
assembl[e] with any society, group, or assemblage of persons formed to teach or
advocate the doctrines of criminal syndicalism" (Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §
2923.13). A Ku Klux Klan leader was found guilty under the statute after
footage of him presiding over a KKK gathering was shown in the media.
"Therefore, we are faced with a statute that, by its own language and as applied,
purports to punish mere advocacy and to forbid, on pain of criminal
punishment, assembly with others merely to advocate the described type of
action," the US Supreme Court ruled [Footnote 4]. A law like that is prohibited
by the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
An Illustration of a Statute Void for Vagueness
A law that makes "inappropriate attire on public beaches" illegal is passed by
the state legislature. Because Larry, a law enforcement officer, believes that
women should only wear one-piece bathing suits, he arrests Kathy for wearing
two. Two days later, Sarah is arrested by Burt, another police officer, for
wearing a one-piece bathing suit at the beach. Burt believes that women should
not be seen in bathing suits in public. Sarah and Kathy may challenge the statute
on its face and argue that it is ambiguous. The definition of "inappropriate" is
ambiguous and can vary from person to person. As a result, it gives law
enforcement excessive discretion, is applied unevenly, and fails to adequately
inform Kathy, Sarah, and the general public of what conduct is illegal.
An Illustration of an Unconstitutional Riot Incitement Statute
In order to accomplish industrial or political reform, Ohio passed a law that
made it illegal to "advocate[ing]...the duty, necessity, or propriety of crime,
sabotage, violence, or unlawful methods of terrorism" and to "voluntarily
assembl[e] with any society, group, or assemblage of persons formed to teach or
advocate the doctrines of criminal syndicalism" (Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §
2923.13). A Ku Klux Klan leader was found guilty under the statute after
footage of him presiding over a KKK gathering was shown in the media.
"Therefore, we are faced with a statute that, by its own language and as applied,
purports to punish mere advocacy and to forbid, on pain of criminal
punishment, assembly with others merely to advocate the described type of
action," the US Supreme Court ruled [Footnote 4]. A law like that is prohibited
by the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
An Illustration of a Statute Void for Vagueness
A law that makes "inappropriate attire on public beaches" illegal is passed by
the state legislature. Because Larry, a law enforcement officer, believes that
women should only wear one-piece bathing suits, he arrests Kathy for wearing
two. Two days later, Sarah is arrested by Burt, another police officer, for
wearing a one-piece bathing suit at the beach. Burt believes that women should
not be seen in bathing suits in public. Sarah and Kathy may challenge the statute
on its face and argue that it is ambiguous. The definition of "inappropriate" is
ambiguous and can vary from person to person. As a result, it gives law
enforcement excessive discretion, is applied unevenly, and fails to adequately
inform Kathy, Sarah, and the general public of what conduct is illegal.
An Illustration of an Unconstitutional Riot Incitement Statute
In order to accomplish industrial or political reform, Ohio passed a law that
made it illegal to "advocate[ing]...the duty, necessity, or propriety of crime,
sabotage, violence, or unlawful methods of terrorism" and to "voluntarily
assembl[e] with any society, group, or assemblage of persons formed to teach or
advocate the doctrines of criminal syndicalism" (Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §
2923.13). A Ku Klux Klan leader was found guilty under the statute after
footage of him presiding over a KKK gathering was shown in the media.
"Therefore, we are faced with a statute that, by its own language and as applied,
purports to punish mere advocacy and to forbid, on pain of criminal
punishment, assembly with others merely to advocate the described type of
action," the US Supreme Court ruled [Footnote 4]. A law like that is prohibited
by the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
An Illustration of a Statute Void for Vagueness
A law that makes "inappropriate attire on public beaches" illegal is passed by
the state legislature. Because Larry, a law enforcement officer, believes that
women should only wear one-piece bathing suits, he arrests Kathy for wearing
two. Two days later, Sarah is arrested by Burt, another police officer, for
wearing a one-piece bathing suit at the beach. Burt believes that women should
not be seen in bathing suits in public. Sarah and Kathy may challenge the statute
on its face and argue that it is ambiguous. The definition of "inappropriate" is
ambiguous and can vary from person to person. As a result, it gives law
enforcement excessive discretion, is applied unevenly, and fails to adequately
inform Kathy, Sarah, and the general public of what conduct is illegal.
An Illustration of an Unconstitutional Riot Incitement Statute
In order to accomplish industrial or political reform, Ohio passed a law that
made it illegal to "advocate[ing]...the duty, necessity, or propriety of crime,
sabotage, violence, or unlawful methods of terrorism" and to "voluntarily
assembl[e] with any society, group, or assemblage of persons formed to teach or
advocate the doctrines of criminal syndicalism" (Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §
2923.13). A Ku Klux Klan leader was found guilty under the statute after
footage of him presiding over a KKK gathering was shown in the media.
"Therefore, we are faced with a statute that, by its own language and as applied,
purports to punish mere advocacy and to forbid, on pain of criminal
punishment, assembly with others merely to advocate the described type of
action," the US Supreme Court ruled [Footnote 4]. A law like that is prohibited
by the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
An Illustration of a Statute Void for Vagueness
A law that makes "inappropriate attire on public beaches" illegal is passed by
the state legislature. Because Larry, a law enforcement officer, believes that
women should only wear one-piece bathing suits, he arrests Kathy for wearing
two. Two days later, Sarah is arrested by Burt, another police officer, for
wearing a one-piece bathing suit at the beach. Burt believes that women should
not be seen in bathing suits in public. Sarah and Kathy may challenge the statute
on its face and argue that it is ambiguous. The definition of "inappropriate" is
ambiguous and can vary from person to person. As a result, it gives law
enforcement excessive discretion, is applied unevenly, and fails to adequately
inform Kathy, Sarah, and the general public of what conduct is illegal.
An Illustration of an Unconstitutional Riot Incitement Statute
In order to accomplish industrial or political reform, Ohio passed a law that
made it illegal to "advocate[ing]...the duty, necessity, or propriety of crime,
sabotage, violence, or unlawful methods of terrorism" and to "voluntarily
assembl[e] with any society, group, or assemblage of persons formed to teach or
advocate the doctrines of criminal syndicalism" (Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §
2923.13). A Ku Klux Klan leader was found guilty under the statute after
footage of him presiding over a KKK gathering was shown in the media.
"Therefore, we are faced with a statute that, by its own language and as applied,
purports to punish mere advocacy and to forbid, on pain of criminal
punishment, assembly with others merely to advocate the described type of
action," the US Supreme Court ruled [Footnote 4]. A law like that is prohibited
by the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
An Illustration of a Statute Void for Vagueness
A law that makes "inappropriate attire on public beaches" illegal is passed by
the state legislature. Because Larry, a law enforcement officer, believes that
women should only wear one-piece bathing suits, he arrests Kathy for wearing
two. Two days later, Sarah is arrested by Burt, another police officer, for
wearing a one-piece bathing suit at the beach. Burt believes that women should
not be seen in bathing suits in public. Sarah and Kathy may challenge the statute
on its face and argue that it is ambiguous. The definition of "inappropriate" is
ambiguous and can vary from person to person. As a result, it gives law
enforcement excessive discretion, is applied unevenly, and fails to adequately
inform Kathy, Sarah, and the general public of what conduct is illegal.
An Illustration of an Unconstitutional Riot Incitement Statute
In order to accomplish industrial or political reform, Ohio passed a law that
made it illegal to "advocate[ing]...the duty, necessity, or propriety of crime,
sabotage, violence, or unlawful methods of terrorism" and to "voluntarily
assembl[e] with any society, group, or assemblage of persons formed to teach or
advocate the doctrines of criminal syndicalism" (Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §
2923.13). A Ku Klux Klan leader was found guilty under the statute after
footage of him presiding over a KKK gathering was shown in the media.
"Therefore, we are faced with a statute that, by its own language and as applied,
purports to punish mere advocacy and to forbid, on pain of criminal
punishment, assembly with others merely to advocate the described type of
action," the US Supreme Court ruled [Footnote 4]. A law like that is prohibited
by the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
An Illustration of a Statute Void for Vagueness
A law that makes "inappropriate attire on public beaches" illegal is passed by
the state legislature. Because Larry, a law enforcement officer, believes that
women should only wear one-piece bathing suits, he arrests Kathy for wearing
two. Two days later, Sarah is arrested by Burt, another police officer, for
wearing a one-piece bathing suit at the beach. Burt believes that women should
not be seen in bathing suits in public. Sarah and Kathy may challenge the statute
on its face and argue that it is ambiguous. The definition of "inappropriate" is
ambiguous and can vary from person to person. As a result, it gives law
enforcement excessive discretion, is applied unevenly, and fails to adequately
inform Kathy, Sarah, and the general public of what conduct is illegal.
An Illustration of an Unconstitutional Riot Incitement Statute
In order to accomplish industrial or political reform, Ohio passed a law that
made it illegal to "advocate[ing]...the duty, necessity, or propriety of crime,
sabotage, violence, or unlawful methods of terrorism" and to "voluntarily
assembl[e] with any society, group, or assemblage of persons formed to teach or
advocate the doctrines of criminal syndicalism" (Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §
2923.13). A Ku Klux Klan leader was found guilty under the statute after
footage of him presiding over a KKK gathering was shown in the media.
"Therefore, we are faced with a statute that, by its own language and as applied,
purports to punish mere advocacy and to forbid, on pain of criminal
punishment, assembly with others merely to advocate the described type of
action," the US Supreme Court ruled [Footnote 4]. A law like that is prohibited
by the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
An Illustration of a Statute Void for Vagueness
A law that makes "inappropriate attire on public beaches" illegal is passed by
the state legislature. Because Larry, a law enforcement officer, believes that
women should only wear one-piece bathing suits, he arrests Kathy for wearing
two. Two days later, Sarah is arrested by Burt, another police officer, for
wearing a one-piece bathing suit at the beach. Burt believes that women should
not be seen in bathing suits in public. Sarah and Kathy may challenge the statute
on its face and argue that it is ambiguous. The definition of "inappropriate" is
ambiguous and can vary from person to person. As a result, it gives law
enforcement excessive discretion, is applied unevenly, and fails to adequately
inform Kathy, Sarah, and the general public of what conduct is illegal.
An Illustration of an Unconstitutional Riot Incitement Statute
In order to accomplish industrial or political reform, Ohio passed a law that
made it illegal to "advocate[ing]...the duty, necessity, or propriety of crime,
sabotage, violence, or unlawful methods of terrorism" and to "voluntarily
assembl[e] with any society, group, or assemblage of persons formed to teach or
advocate the doctrines of criminal syndicalism" (Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §
2923.13). A Ku Klux Klan leader was found guilty under the statute after
footage of him presiding over a KKK gathering was shown in the media.
"Therefore, we are faced with a statute that, by its own language and as applied,
purports to punish mere advocacy and to forbid, on pain of criminal
punishment, assembly with others merely to advocate the described type of
action," the US Supreme Court ruled [Footnote 4]. A law like that is prohibited
by the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
An Illustration of a Statute Void for Vagueness
A law that makes "inappropriate attire on public beaches" illegal is passed by
the state legislature. Because Larry, a law enforcement officer, believes that
women should only wear one-piece bathing suits, he arrests Kathy for wearing
two. Two days later, Sarah is arrested by Burt, another police officer, for
wearing a one-piece bathing suit at the beach. Burt believes that women should
not be seen in bathing suits in public. Sarah and Kathy may challenge the statute
on its face and argue that it is ambiguous. The definition of "inappropriate" is
ambiguous and can vary from person to person. As a result, it gives law
enforcement excessive discretion, is applied unevenly, and fails to adequately
inform Kathy, Sarah, and the general public of what conduct is illegal.
An Illustration of an Unconstitutional Riot Incitement Statute
In order to accomplish industrial or political reform, Ohio passed a law that
made it illegal to "advocate[ing]...the duty, necessity, or propriety of crime,
sabotage, violence, or unlawful methods of terrorism" and to "voluntarily
assembl[e] with any society, group, or assemblage of persons formed to teach or
advocate the doctrines of criminal syndicalism" (Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §
2923.13). A Ku Klux Klan leader was found guilty under the statute after
footage of him presiding over a KKK gathering was shown in the media.
"Therefore, we are faced with a statute that, by its own language and as applied,
purports to punish mere advocacy and to forbid, on pain of criminal
punishment, assembly with others merely to advocate the described type of
action," the US Supreme Court ruled [Footnote 4]. A law like that is prohibited
by the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
An Illustration of a Statute Void for Vagueness
A law that makes "inappropriate attire on public beaches" illegal is passed by
the state legislature. Because Larry, a law enforcement officer, believes that
women should only wear one-piece bathing suits, he arrests Kathy for wearing
two. Two days later, Sarah is arrested by Burt, another police officer, for
wearing a one-piece bathing suit at the beach. Burt believes that women should
not be seen in bathing suits in public. Sarah and Kathy may challenge the statute
on its face and argue that it is ambiguous. The definition of "inappropriate" is
ambiguous and can vary from person to person. As a result, it gives law
enforcement excessive discretion, is applied unevenly, and fails to adequately
inform Kathy, Sarah, and the general public of what conduct is illegal.
An Illustration of an Unconstitutional Riot Incitement Statute
In order to accomplish industrial or political reform, Ohio passed a law that
made it illegal to "advocate[ing]...the duty, necessity, or propriety of crime,
sabotage, violence, or unlawful methods of terrorism" and to "voluntarily
assembl[e] with any society, group, or assemblage of persons formed to teach or
advocate the doctrines of criminal syndicalism" (Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §
2923.13). A Ku Klux Klan leader was found guilty under the statute after
footage of him presiding over a KKK gathering was shown in the media.
"Therefore, we are faced with a statute that, by its own language and as applied,
purports to punish mere advocacy and to forbid, on pain of criminal
punishment, assembly with others merely to advocate the described type of
action," the US Supreme Court ruled [Footnote 4]. A law like that is prohibited
by the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
An Illustration of a Statute Void for Vagueness
A law that makes "inappropriate attire on public beaches" illegal is passed by
the state legislature. Because Larry, a law enforcement officer, believes that
women should only wear one-piece bathing suits, he arrests Kathy for wearing
two. Two days later, Sarah is arrested by Burt, another police officer, for
wearing a one-piece bathing suit at the beach. Burt believes that women should
not be seen in bathing suits in public. Sarah and Kathy may challenge the statute
on its face and argue that it is ambiguous. The definition of "inappropriate" is
ambiguous and can vary from person to person. As a result, it gives law
enforcement excessive discretion, is applied unevenly, and fails to adequately
inform Kathy, Sarah, and the general public of what conduct is illegal.
An Illustration of an Unconstitutional Riot Incitement Statute
In order to accomplish industrial or political reform, Ohio passed a law that
made it illegal to "advocate[ing]...the duty, necessity, or propriety of crime,
sabotage, violence, or unlawful methods of terrorism" and to "voluntarily
assembl[e] with any society, group, or assemblage of persons formed to teach or
advocate the doctrines of criminal syndicalism" (Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §
2923.13). A Ku Klux Klan leader was found guilty under the statute after
footage of him presiding over a KKK gathering was shown in the media.
"Therefore, we are faced with a statute that, by its own language and as applied,
purports to punish mere advocacy and to forbid, on pain of criminal
punishment, assembly with others merely to advocate the described type of
action," the US Supreme Court ruled [Footnote 4]. A law like that is prohibited
by the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
An Illustration of a Statute Void for Vagueness
A law that makes "inappropriate attire on public beaches" illegal is passed by
the state legislature. Because Larry, a law enforcement officer, believes that
women should only wear one-piece bathing suits, he arrests Kathy for wearing
two. Two days later, Sarah is arrested by Burt, another police officer, for
wearing a one-piece bathing suit at the beach. Burt believes that women should
not be seen in bathing suits in public. Sarah and Kathy may challenge the statute
on its face and argue that it is ambiguous. The definition of "inappropriate" is
ambiguous and can vary from person to person. As a result, it gives law
enforcement excessive discretion, is applied unevenly, and fails to adequately
inform Kathy, Sarah, and the general public of what conduct is illegal.
An Illustration of an Unconstitutional Riot Incitement Statute
In order to accomplish industrial or political reform, Ohio passed a law that
made it illegal to "advocate[ing]...the duty, necessity, or propriety of crime,
sabotage, violence, or unlawful methods of terrorism" and to "voluntarily
assembl[e] with any society, group, or assemblage of persons formed to teach or
advocate the doctrines of criminal syndicalism" (Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §
2923.13). A Ku Klux Klan leader was found guilty under the statute after
footage of him presiding over a KKK gathering was shown in the media.
"Therefore, we are faced with a statute that, by its own language and as applied,
purports to punish mere advocacy and to forbid, on pain of criminal
punishment, assembly with others merely to advocate the described type of
action," the US Supreme Court ruled [Footnote 4]. A law like that is prohibited
by the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
An Illustration of a Statute Void for Vagueness
A law that makes "inappropriate attire on public beaches" illegal is passed by
the state legislature. Because Larry, a law enforcement officer, believes that
women should only wear one-piece bathing suits, he arrests Kathy for wearing
two. Two days later, Sarah is arrested by Burt, another police officer, for
wearing a one-piece bathing suit at the beach. Burt believes that women should
not be seen in bathing suits in public. Sarah and Kathy may challenge the statute
on its face and argue that it is ambiguous. The definition of "inappropriate" is
ambiguous and can vary from person to person. As a result, it gives law
enforcement excessive discretion, is applied unevenly, and fails to adequately
inform Kathy, Sarah, and the general public of what conduct is illegal.
An Illustration of an Unconstitutional Riot Incitement Statute
In order to accomplish industrial or political reform, Ohio passed a law that
made it illegal to "advocate[ing]...the duty, necessity, or propriety of crime,
sabotage, violence, or unlawful methods of terrorism" and to "voluntarily
assembl[e] with any society, group, or assemblage of persons formed to teach or
advocate the doctrines of criminal syndicalism" (Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §
2923.13). A Ku Klux Klan leader was found guilty under the statute after
footage of him presiding over a KKK gathering was shown in the media.
"Therefore, we are faced with a statute that, by its own language and as applied,
purports to punish mere advocacy and to forbid, on pain of criminal
punishment, assembly with others merely to advocate the described type of
action," the US Supreme Court ruled [Footnote 4]. A law like that is prohibited
by the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
An Illustration of a Statute Void for Vagueness
A law that makes "inappropriate attire on public beaches" illegal is passed by
the state legislature. Because Larry, a law enforcement officer, believes that
women should only wear one-piece bathing suits, he arrests Kathy for wearing
two. Two days later, Sarah is arrested by Burt, another police officer, for
wearing a one-piece bathing suit at the beach. Burt believes that women should
not be seen in bathing suits in public. Sarah and Kathy may challenge the statute
on its face and argue that it is ambiguous. The definition of "inappropriate" is
ambiguous and can vary from person to person. As a result, it gives law
enforcement excessive discretion, is applied unevenly, and fails to adequately
inform Kathy, Sarah, and the general public of what conduct is illegal.
An Illustration of an Unconstitutional Riot Incitement Statute
In order to accomplish industrial or political reform, Ohio passed a law that
made it illegal to "advocate[ing]...the duty, necessity, or propriety of crime,
sabotage, violence, or unlawful methods of terrorism" and to "voluntarily
assembl[e] with any society, group, or assemblage of persons formed to teach or
advocate the doctrines of criminal syndicalism" (Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §
2923.13). A Ku Klux Klan leader was found guilty under the statute after
footage of him presiding over a KKK gathering was shown in the media.
"Therefore, we are faced with a statute that, by its own language and as applied,
purports to punish mere advocacy and to forbid, on pain of criminal
punishment, assembly with others merely to advocate the described type of
action," the US Supreme Court ruled [Footnote 4]. A law like that is prohibited
by the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
An Illustration of a Statute Void for Vagueness
A law that makes "inappropriate attire on public beaches" illegal is passed by
the state legislature. Because Larry, a law enforcement officer, believes that
women should only wear one-piece bathing suits, he arrests Kathy for wearing
two. Two days later, Sarah is arrested by Burt, another police officer, for
wearing a one-piece bathing suit at the beach. Burt believes that women should
not be seen in bathing suits in public. Sarah and Kathy may challenge the statute
on its face and argue that it is ambiguous. The definition of "inappropriate" is
ambiguous and can vary from person to person. As a result, it gives law
enforcement excessive discretion, is applied unevenly, and fails to adequately
inform Kathy, Sarah, and the general public of what conduct is illegal.
An Illustration of an Unconstitutional Riot Incitement Statute
In order to accomplish industrial or political reform, Ohio passed a law that
made it illegal to "advocate[ing]...the duty, necessity, or propriety of crime,
sabotage, violence, or unlawful methods of terrorism" and to "voluntarily
assembl[e] with any society, group, or assemblage of persons formed to teach or
advocate the doctrines of criminal syndicalism" (Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §
2923.13). A Ku Klux Klan leader was found guilty under the statute after
footage of him presiding over a KKK gathering was shown in the media.
"Therefore, we are faced with a statute that, by its own language and as applied,
purports to punish mere advocacy and to forbid, on pain of criminal
punishment, assembly with others merely to advocate the described type of
action," the US Supreme Court ruled [Footnote 4]. A law like that is prohibited
by the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
An Illustration of a Statute Void for Vagueness
A law that makes "inappropriate attire on public beaches" illegal is passed by
the state legislature. Because Larry, a law enforcement officer, believes that
women should only wear one-piece bathing suits, he arrests Kathy for wearing
two. Two days later, Sarah is arrested by Burt, another police officer, for
wearing a one-piece bathing suit at the beach. Burt believes that women should
not be seen in bathing suits in public. Sarah and Kathy may challenge the statute
on its face and argue that it is ambiguous. The definition of "inappropriate" is
ambiguous and can vary from person to person. As a result, it gives law
enforcement excessive discretion, is applied unevenly, and fails to adequately
inform Kathy, Sarah, and the general public of what conduct is illegal.
An Illustration of an Unconstitutional Riot Incitement Statute
In order to accomplish industrial or political reform, Ohio passed a law that
made it illegal to "advocate[ing]...the duty, necessity, or propriety of crime,
sabotage, violence, or unlawful methods of terrorism" and to "voluntarily
assembl[e] with any society, group, or assemblage of persons formed to teach or
advocate the doctrines of criminal syndicalism" (Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §
2923.13). A Ku Klux Klan leader was found guilty under the statute after
footage of him presiding over a KKK gathering was shown in the media.
"Therefore, we are faced with a statute that, by its own language and as applied,
purports to punish mere advocacy and to forbid, on pain of criminal
punishment, assembly with others merely to advocate the described type of
action," the US Supreme Court ruled [Footnote 4]. A law like that is prohibited
by the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
An Illustration of a Statute Void for Vagueness
A law that makes "inappropriate attire on public beaches" illegal is passed by
the state legislature. Because Larry, a law enforcement officer, believes that
women should only wear one-piece bathing suits, he arrests Kathy for wearing
two. Two days later, Sarah is arrested by Burt, another police officer, for
wearing a one-piece bathing suit at the beach. Burt believes that women should
not be seen in bathing suits in public. Sarah and Kathy may challenge the statute
on its face and argue that it is ambiguous. The definition of "inappropriate" is
ambiguous and can vary from person to person. As a result, it gives law
enforcement excessive discretion, is applied unevenly, and fails to adequately
inform Kathy, Sarah, and the general public of what conduct is illegal.
An Illustration of an Unconstitutional Riot Incitement Statute
In order to accomplish industrial or political reform, Ohio passed a law that
made it illegal to "advocate[ing]...the duty, necessity, or propriety of crime,
sabotage, violence, or unlawful methods of terrorism" and to "voluntarily
assembl[e] with any society, group, or assemblage of persons formed to teach or
advocate the doctrines of criminal syndicalism" (Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §
2923.13). A Ku Klux Klan leader was found guilty under the statute after
footage of him presiding over a KKK gathering was shown in the media.
"Therefore, we are faced with a statute that, by its own language and as applied,
purports to punish mere advocacy and to forbid, on pain of criminal
punishment, assembly with others merely to advocate the described type of
action," the US Supreme Court ruled [Footnote 4]. A law like that is prohibited
by the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
An Illustration of a Statute Void for Vagueness
A law that makes "inappropriate attire on public beaches" illegal is passed by
the state legislature. Because Larry, a law enforcement officer, believes that
women should only wear one-piece bathing suits, he arrests Kathy for wearing
two. Two days later, Sarah is arrested by Burt, another police officer, for
wearing a one-piece bathing suit at the beach. Burt believes that women should
not be seen in bathing suits in public. Sarah and Kathy may challenge the statute
on its face and argue that it is ambiguous. The definition of "inappropriate" is
ambiguous and can vary from person to person. As a result, it gives law
enforcement excessive discretion, is applied unevenly, and fails to adequately
inform Kathy, Sarah, and the general public of what conduct is illegal.
An Illustration of an Unconstitutional Riot Incitement Statute
In order to accomplish industrial or political reform, Ohio passed a law that
made it illegal to "advocate[ing]...the duty, necessity, or propriety of crime,
sabotage, violence, or unlawful methods of terrorism" and to "voluntarily
assembl[e] with any society, group, or assemblage of persons formed to teach or
advocate the doctrines of criminal syndicalism" (Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §
2923.13). A Ku Klux Klan leader was found guilty under the statute after
footage of him presiding over a KKK gathering was shown in the media.
"Therefore, we are faced with a statute that, by its own language and as applied,
purports to punish mere advocacy and to forbid, on pain of criminal
punishment, assembly with others merely to advocate the described type of
action," the US Supreme Court ruled [Footnote 4]. A law like that is prohibited
by the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
An Illustration of a Statute Void for Vagueness
A law that makes "inappropriate attire on public beaches" illegal is passed by
the state legislature. Because Larry, a law enforcement officer, believes that
women should only wear one-piece bathing suits, he arrests Kathy for wearing
two. Two days later, Sarah is arrested by Burt, another police officer, for
wearing a one-piece bathing suit at the beach. Burt believes that women should
not be seen in bathing suits in public. Sarah and Kathy may challenge the statute
on its face and argue that it is ambiguous. The definition of "inappropriate" is
ambiguous and can vary from person to person. As a result, it gives law
enforcement excessive discretion, is applied unevenly, and fails to adequately
inform Kathy, Sarah, and the general public of what conduct is illegal.
An Illustration of an Unconstitutional Riot Incitement Statute
In order to accomplish industrial or political reform, Ohio passed a law that
made it illegal to "advocate[ing]...the duty, necessity, or propriety of crime,
sabotage, violence, or unlawful methods of terrorism" and to "voluntarily
assembl[e] with any society, group, or assemblage of persons formed to teach or
advocate the doctrines of criminal syndicalism" (Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §
2923.13). A Ku Klux Klan leader was found guilty under the statute after
footage of him presiding over a KKK gathering was shown in the media.
"Therefore, we are faced with a statute that, by its own language and as applied,
purports to punish mere advocacy and to forbid, on pain of criminal
punishment, assembly with others merely to advocate the described type of
action," the US Supreme Court ruled [Footnote 4]. A law like that is prohibited
by the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
An Illustration of a Statute Void for Vagueness
A law that makes "inappropriate attire on public beaches" illegal is passed by
the state legislature. Because Larry, a law enforcement officer, believes that
women should only wear one-piece bathing suits, he arrests Kathy for wearing
two. Two days later, Sarah is arrested by Burt, another police officer, for
wearing a one-piece bathing suit at the beach. Burt believes that women should
not be seen in bathing suits in public. Sarah and Kathy may challenge the statute
on its face and argue that it is ambiguous. The definition of "inappropriate" is
ambiguous and can vary from person to person. As a result, it gives law
enforcement excessive discretion, is applied unevenly, and fails to adequately
inform Kathy, Sarah, and the general public of what conduct is illegal.
An Illustration of an Unconstitutional Riot Incitement Statute
In order to accomplish industrial or political reform, Ohio passed a law that
made it illegal to "advocate[ing]...the duty, necessity, or propriety of crime,
sabotage, violence, or unlawful methods of terrorism" and to "voluntarily
assembl[e] with any society, group, or assemblage of persons formed to teach or
advocate the doctrines of criminal syndicalism" (Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §
2923.13). A Ku Klux Klan leader was found guilty under the statute after
footage of him presiding over a KKK gathering was shown in the media.
"Therefore, we are faced with a statute that, by its own language and as applied,
purports to punish mere advocacy and to forbid, on pain of criminal
punishment, assembly with others merely to advocate the described type of
action," the US Supreme Court ruled [Footnote 4]. A law like that is prohibited
by the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
An Illustration of a Statute Void for Vagueness
A law that makes "inappropriate attire on public beaches" illegal is passed by
the state legislature. Because Larry, a law enforcement officer, believes that
women should only wear one-piece bathing suits, he arrests Kathy for wearing
two. Two days later, Sarah is arrested by Burt, another police officer, for
wearing a one-piece bathing suit at the beach. Burt believes that women should
not be seen in bathing suits in public. Sarah and Kathy may challenge the statute
on its face and argue that it is ambiguous. The definition of "inappropriate" is
ambiguous and can vary from person to person. As a result, it gives law
enforcement excessive discretion, is applied unevenly, and fails to adequately
inform Kathy, Sarah, and the general public of what conduct is illegal.
An Illustration of an Unconstitutional Riot Incitement Statute
In order to accomplish industrial or political reform, Ohio passed a law that
made it illegal to "advocate[ing]...the duty, necessity, or propriety of crime,
sabotage, violence, or unlawful methods of terrorism" and to "voluntarily
assembl[e] with any society, group, or assemblage of persons formed to teach or
advocate the doctrines of criminal syndicalism" (Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §
2923.13). A Ku Klux Klan leader was found guilty under the statute after
footage of him presiding over a KKK gathering was shown in the media.
"Therefore, we are faced with a statute that, by its own language and as applied,
purports to punish mere advocacy and to forbid, on pain of criminal
punishment, assembly with others merely to advocate the described type of
action," the US Supreme Court ruled [Footnote 4]. A law like that is prohibited
by the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
An Illustration of a Statute Void for Vagueness
A law that makes "inappropriate attire on public beaches" illegal is passed by
the state legislature. Because Larry, a law enforcement officer, believes that
women should only wear one-piece bathing suits, he arrests Kathy for wearing
two. Two days later, Sarah is arrested by Burt, another police officer, for
wearing a one-piece bathing suit at the beach. Burt believes that women should
not be seen in bathing suits in public. Sarah and Kathy may challenge the statute
on its face and argue that it is ambiguous. The definition of "inappropriate" is
ambiguous and can vary from person to person. As a result, it gives law
enforcement excessive discretion, is applied unevenly, and fails to adequately
inform Kathy, Sarah, and the general public of what conduct is illegal.
An Illustration of an Unconstitutional Riot Incitement Statute
In order to accomplish industrial or political reform, Ohio passed a law that
made it illegal to "advocate[ing]...the duty, necessity, or propriety of crime,
sabotage, violence, or unlawful methods of terrorism" and to "voluntarily
assembl[e] with any society, group, or assemblage of persons formed to teach or
advocate the doctrines of criminal syndicalism" (Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §
2923.13). A Ku Klux Klan leader was found guilty under the statute after
footage of him presiding over a KKK gathering was shown in the media.
"Therefore, we are faced with a statute that, by its own language and as applied,
purports to punish mere advocacy and to forbid, on pain of criminal
punishment, assembly with others merely to advocate the described type of
action," the US Supreme Court ruled [Footnote 4]. A law like that is prohibited
by the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
An Illustration of a Statute Void for Vagueness
A law that makes "inappropriate attire on public beaches" illegal is passed by
the state legislature. Because Larry, a law enforcement officer, believes that
women should only wear one-piece bathing suits, he arrests Kathy for wearing
two. Two days later, Sarah is arrested by Burt, another police officer, for
wearing a one-piece bathing suit at the beach. Burt believes that women should
not be seen in bathing suits in public. Sarah and Kathy may challenge the statute
on its face and argue that it is ambiguous. The definition of "inappropriate" is
ambiguous and can vary from person to person. As a result, it gives law
enforcement excessive discretion, is applied unevenly, and fails to adequately
inform Kathy, Sarah, and the general public of what conduct is illegal.
An Illustration of an Unconstitutional Riot Incitement Statute
In order to accomplish industrial or political reform, Ohio passed a law that
made it illegal to "advocate[ing]...the duty, necessity, or propriety of crime,
sabotage, violence, or unlawful methods of terrorism" and to "voluntarily
assembl[e] with any society, group, or assemblage of persons formed to teach or
advocate the doctrines of criminal syndicalism" (Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §
2923.13). A Ku Klux Klan leader was found guilty under the statute after
footage of him presiding over a KKK gathering was shown in the media.
"Therefore, we are faced with a statute that, by its own language and as applied,
purports to punish mere advocacy and to forbid, on pain of criminal
punishment, assembly with others merely to advocate the described type of
action," the US Supreme Court ruled [Footnote 4]. A law like that is prohibited
by the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
An Illustration of a Statute Void for Vagueness
A law that makes "inappropriate attire on public beaches" illegal is passed by
the state legislature. Because Larry, a law enforcement officer, believes that
women should only wear one-piece bathing suits, he arrests Kathy for wearing
two. Two days later, Sarah is arrested by Burt, another police officer, for
wearing a one-piece bathing suit at the beach. Burt believes that women should
not be seen in bathing suits in public. Sarah and Kathy may challenge the statute
on its face and argue that it is ambiguous. The definition of "inappropriate" is
ambiguous and can vary from person to person. As a result, it gives law
enforcement excessive discretion, is applied unevenly, and fails to adequately
inform Kathy, Sarah, and the general public of what conduct is illegal.
An Illustration of an Unconstitutional Riot Incitement Statute
In order to accomplish industrial or political reform, Ohio passed a law that
made it illegal to "advocate[ing]...the duty, necessity, or propriety of crime,
sabotage, violence, or unlawful methods of terrorism" and to "voluntarily
assembl[e] with any society, group, or assemblage of persons formed to teach or
advocate the doctrines of criminal syndicalism" (Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §
2923.13). A Ku Klux Klan leader was found guilty under the statute after
footage of him presiding over a KKK gathering was shown in the media.
"Therefore, we are faced with a statute that, by its own language and as applied,
purports to punish mere advocacy and to forbid, on pain of criminal
punishment, assembly with others merely to advocate the described type of
action," the US Supreme Court ruled [Footnote 4]. A law like that is prohibited
by the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
An Illustration of a Statute Void for Vagueness
A law that makes "inappropriate attire on public beaches" illegal is passed by
the state legislature. Because Larry, a law enforcement officer, believes that
women should only wear one-piece bathing suits, he arrests Kathy for wearing
two. Two days later, Sarah is arrested by Burt, another police officer, for
wearing a one-piece bathing suit at the beach. Burt believes that women should
not be seen in bathing suits in public. Sarah and Kathy may challenge the statute
on its face and argue that it is ambiguous. The definition of "inappropriate" is
ambiguous and can vary from person to person. As a result, it gives law
enforcement excessive discretion, is applied unevenly, and fails to adequately
inform Kathy, Sarah, and the general public of what conduct is illegal.
An Illustration of an Unconstitutional Riot Incitement Statute
In order to accomplish industrial or political reform, Ohio passed a law that
made it illegal to "advocate[ing]...the duty, necessity, or propriety of crime,
sabotage, violence, or unlawful methods of terrorism" and to "voluntarily
assembl[e] with any society, group, or assemblage of persons formed to teach or
advocate the doctrines of criminal syndicalism" (Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §
2923.13). A Ku Klux Klan leader was found guilty under the statute after
footage of him presiding over a KKK gathering was shown in the media.
"Therefore, we are faced with a statute that, by its own language and as applied,
purports to punish mere advocacy and to forbid, on pain of criminal
punishment, assembly with others merely to advocate the described type of
action," the US Supreme Court ruled [Footnote 4]. A law like that is prohibited
by the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
An Illustration of a Statute Void for Vagueness
A law that makes "inappropriate attire on public beaches" illegal is passed by
the state legislature. Because Larry, a law enforcement officer, believes that
women should only wear one-piece bathing suits, he arrests Kathy for wearing
two. Two days later, Sarah is arrested by Burt, another police officer, for
wearing a one-piece bathing suit at the beach. Burt believes that women should
not be seen in bathing suits in public. Sarah and Kathy may challenge the statute
on its face and argue that it is ambiguous. The definition of "inappropriate" is
ambiguous and can vary from person to person. As a result, it gives law
enforcement excessive discretion, is applied unevenly, and fails to adequately
inform Kathy, Sarah, and the general public of what conduct is illegal.
An Illustration of an Unconstitutional Riot Incitement Statute
In order to accomplish industrial or political reform, Ohio passed a law that
made it illegal to "advocate[ing]...the duty, necessity, or propriety of crime,
sabotage, violence, or unlawful methods of terrorism" and to "voluntarily
assembl[e] with any society, group, or assemblage of persons formed to teach or
advocate the doctrines of criminal syndicalism" (Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §
2923.13). A Ku Klux Klan leader was found guilty under the statute after
footage of him presiding over a KKK gathering was shown in the media.
"Therefore, we are faced with a statute that, by its own language and as applied,
purports to punish mere advocacy and to forbid, on pain of criminal
punishment, assembly with others merely to advocate the described type of
action," the US Supreme Court ruled [Footnote 4]. A law like that is prohibited
by the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
An Illustration of a Statute Void for Vagueness
A law that makes "inappropriate attire on public beaches" illegal is passed by
the state legislature. Because Larry, a law enforcement officer, believes that
women should only wear one-piece bathing suits, he arrests Kathy for wearing
two. Two days later, Sarah is arrested by Burt, another police officer, for
wearing a one-piece bathing suit at the beach. Burt believes that women should
not be seen in bathing suits in public. Sarah and Kathy may challenge the statute
on its face and argue that it is ambiguous. The definition of "inappropriate" is
ambiguous and can vary from person to person. As a result, it gives law
enforcement excessive discretion, is applied unevenly, and fails to adequately
inform Kathy, Sarah, and the general public of what conduct is illegal.
An Illustration of an Unconstitutional Riot Incitement Statute
In order to accomplish industrial or political reform, Ohio passed a law that
made it illegal to "advocate[ing]...the duty, necessity, or propriety of crime,
sabotage, violence, or unlawful methods of terrorism" and to "voluntarily
assembl[e] with any society, group, or assemblage of persons formed to teach or
advocate the doctrines of criminal syndicalism" (Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §
2923.13). A Ku Klux Klan leader was found guilty under the statute after
footage of him presiding over a KKK gathering was shown in the media.
"Therefore, we are faced with a statute that, by its own language and as applied,
purports to punish mere advocacy and to forbid, on pain of criminal
punishment, assembly with others merely to advocate the described type of
action," the US Supreme Court ruled [Footnote 4]. A law like that is prohibited
by the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
An Illustration of a Statute Void for Vagueness
A law that makes "inappropriate attire on public beaches" illegal is passed by
the state legislature. Because Larry, a law enforcement officer, believes that
women should only wear one-piece bathing suits, he arrests Kathy for wearing
two. Two days later, Sarah is arrested by Burt, another police officer, for
wearing a one-piece bathing suit at the beach. Burt believes that women should
not be seen in bathing suits in public. Sarah and Kathy may challenge the statute
on its face and argue that it is ambiguous. The definition of "inappropriate" is
ambiguous and can vary from person to person. As a result, it gives law
enforcement excessive discretion, is applied unevenly, and fails to adequately
inform Kathy, Sarah, and the general public of what conduct is illegal.
An Illustration of an Unconstitutional Riot Incitement Statute
In order to accomplish industrial or political reform, Ohio passed a law that
made it illegal to "advocate[ing]...the duty, necessity, or propriety of crime,
sabotage, violence, or unlawful methods of terrorism" and to "voluntarily
assembl[e] with any society, group, or assemblage of persons formed to teach or
advocate the doctrines of criminal syndicalism" (Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §
2923.13). A Ku Klux Klan leader was found guilty under the statute after
footage of him presiding over a KKK gathering was shown in the media.
"Therefore, we are faced with a statute that, by its own language and as applied,
purports to punish mere advocacy and to forbid, on pain of criminal
punishment, assembly with others merely to advocate the described type of
action," the US Supreme Court ruled [Footnote 4]. A law like that is prohibited
by the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
An Illustration of a Statute Void for Vagueness
A law that makes "inappropriate attire on public beaches" illegal is passed by
the state legislature. Because Larry, a law enforcement officer, believes that
women should only wear one-piece bathing suits, he arrests Kathy for wearing
two. Two days later, Sarah is arrested by Burt, another police officer, for
wearing a one-piece bathing suit at the beach. Burt believes that women should
not be seen in bathing suits in public. Sarah and Kathy may challenge the statute
on its face and argue that it is ambiguous. The definition of "inappropriate" is
ambiguous and can vary from person to person. As a result, it gives law
enforcement excessive discretion, is applied unevenly, and fails to adequately
inform Kathy, Sarah, and the general public of what conduct is illegal.
An Illustration of an Unconstitutional Riot Incitement Statute
In order to accomplish industrial or political reform, Ohio passed a law that
made it illegal to "advocate[ing]...the duty, necessity, or propriety of crime,
sabotage, violence, or unlawful methods of terrorism" and to "voluntarily
assembl[e] with any society, group, or assemblage of persons formed to teach or
advocate the doctrines of criminal syndicalism" (Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §
2923.13). A Ku Klux Klan leader was found guilty under the statute after
footage of him presiding over a KKK gathering was shown in the media.
"Therefore, we are faced with a statute that, by its own language and as applied,
purports to punish mere advocacy and to forbid, on pain of criminal
punishment, assembly with others merely to advocate the described type of
action," the US Supreme Court ruled [Footnote 4]. A law like that is prohibited
by the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
An Illustration of a Statute Void for Vagueness
A law that makes "inappropriate attire on public beaches" illegal is passed by
the state legislature. Because Larry, a law enforcement officer, believes that
women should only wear one-piece bathing suits, he arrests Kathy for wearing
two. Two days later, Sarah is arrested by Burt, another police officer, for
wearing a one-piece bathing suit at the beach. Burt believes that women should
not be seen in bathing suits in public. Sarah and Kathy may challenge the statute
on its face and argue that it is ambiguous. The definition of "inappropriate" is
ambiguous and can vary from person to person. As a result, it gives law
enforcement excessive discretion, is applied unevenly, and fails to adequately
inform Kathy, Sarah, and the general public of what conduct is illegal.
An Illustration of an Unconstitutional Riot Incitement Statute
In order to accomplish industrial or political reform, Ohio passed a law that
made it illegal to "advocate[ing]...the duty, necessity, or propriety of crime,
sabotage, violence, or unlawful methods of terrorism" and to "voluntarily
assembl[e] with any society, group, or assemblage of persons formed to teach or
advocate the doctrines of criminal syndicalism" (Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §
2923.13). A Ku Klux Klan leader was found guilty under the statute after
footage of him presiding over a KKK gathering was shown in the media.
"Therefore, we are faced with a statute that, by its own language and as applied,
purports to punish mere advocacy and to forbid, on pain of criminal
punishment, assembly with others merely to advocate the described type of
action," the US Supreme Court ruled [Footnote 4]. A law like that is prohibited
by the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
An Illustration of a Statute Void for Vagueness
A law that makes "inappropriate attire on public beaches" illegal is passed by
the state legislature. Because Larry, a law enforcement officer, believes that
women should only wear one-piece bathing suits, he arrests Kathy for wearing
two. Two days later, Sarah is arrested by Burt, another police officer, for
wearing a one-piece bathing suit at the beach. Burt believes that women should
not be seen in bathing suits in public. Sarah and Kathy may challenge the statute
on its face and argue that it is ambiguous. The definition of "inappropriate" is
ambiguous and can vary from person to person. As a result, it gives law
enforcement excessive discretion, is applied unevenly, and fails to adequately
inform Kathy, Sarah, and the general public of what conduct is illegal.
An Illustration of an Unconstitutional Riot Incitement Statute
In order to accomplish industrial or political reform, Ohio passed a law that
made it illegal to "advocate[ing]...the duty, necessity, or propriety of crime,
sabotage, violence, or unlawful methods of terrorism" and to "voluntarily
assembl[e] with any society, group, or assemblage of persons formed to teach or
advocate the doctrines of criminal syndicalism" (Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §
2923.13). A Ku Klux Klan leader was found guilty under the statute after
footage of him presiding over a KKK gathering was shown in the media.
"Therefore, we are faced with a statute that, by its own language and as applied,
purports to punish mere advocacy and to forbid, on pain of criminal
punishment, assembly with others merely to advocate the described type of
action," the US Supreme Court ruled [Footnote 4]. A law like that is prohibited
by the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
An Illustration of a Statute Void for Vagueness
A law that makes "inappropriate attire on public beaches" illegal is passed by
the state legislature. Because Larry, a law enforcement officer, believes that
women should only wear one-piece bathing suits, he arrests Kathy for wearing
two. Two days later, Sarah is arrested by Burt, another police officer, for
wearing a one-piece bathing suit at the beach. Burt believes that women should
not be seen in bathing suits in public. Sarah and Kathy may challenge the statute
on its face and argue that it is ambiguous. The definition of "inappropriate" is
ambiguous and can vary from person to person. As a result, it gives law
enforcement excessive discretion, is applied unevenly, and fails to adequately
inform Kathy, Sarah, and the general public of what conduct is illegal.
An Illustration of an Unconstitutional Riot Incitement Statute
In order to accomplish industrial or political reform, Ohio passed a law that
made it illegal to "advocate[ing]...the duty, necessity, or propriety of crime,
sabotage, violence, or unlawful methods of terrorism" and to "voluntarily
assembl[e] with any society, group, or assemblage of persons formed to teach or
advocate the doctrines of criminal syndicalism" (Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §
2923.13). A Ku Klux Klan leader was found guilty under the statute after
footage of him presiding over a KKK gathering was shown in the media.
"Therefore, we are faced with a statute that, by its own language and as applied,
purports to punish mere advocacy and to forbid, on pain of criminal
punishment, assembly with others merely to advocate the described type of
action," the US Supreme Court ruled [Footnote 4]. A law like that is prohibited
by the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
An Illustration of a Statute Void for Vagueness
A law that makes "inappropriate attire on public beaches" illegal is passed by
the state legislature. Because Larry, a law enforcement officer, believes that
women should only wear one-piece bathing suits, he arrests Kathy for wearing
two. Two days later, Sarah is arrested by Burt, another police officer, for
wearing a one-piece bathing suit at the beach. Burt believes that women should
not be seen in bathing suits in public. Sarah and Kathy may challenge the statute
on its face and argue that it is ambiguous. The definition of "inappropriate" is
ambiguous and can vary from person to person. As a result, it gives law
enforcement excessive discretion, is applied unevenly, and fails to adequately
inform Kathy, Sarah, and the general public of what conduct is illegal.
An Illustration of an Unconstitutional Riot Incitement Statute
In order to accomplish industrial or political reform, Ohio passed a law that
made it illegal to "advocate[ing]...the duty, necessity, or propriety of crime,
sabotage, violence, or unlawful methods of terrorism" and to "voluntarily
assembl[e] with any society, group, or assemblage of persons formed to teach or
advocate the doctrines of criminal syndicalism" (Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §
2923.13). A Ku Klux Klan leader was found guilty under the statute after
footage of him presiding over a KKK gathering was shown in the media.
"Therefore, we are faced with a statute that, by its own language and as applied,
purports to punish mere advocacy and to forbid, on pain of criminal
punishment, assembly with others merely to advocate the described type of
action," the US Supreme Court ruled [Footnote 4]. A law like that is prohibited
by the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
An Illustration of a Statute Void for Vagueness
A law that makes "inappropriate attire on public beaches" illegal is passed by
the state legislature. Because Larry, a law enforcement officer, believes that
women should only wear one-piece bathing suits, he arrests Kathy for wearing
two. Two days later, Sarah is arrested by Burt, another police officer, for
wearing a one-piece bathing suit at the beach. Burt believes that women should
not be seen in bathing suits in public. Sarah and Kathy may challenge the statute
on its face and argue that it is ambiguous. The definition of "inappropriate" is
ambiguous and can vary from person to person. As a result, it gives law
enforcement excessive discretion, is applied unevenly, and fails to adequately
inform Kathy, Sarah, and the general public of what conduct is illegal.
An Illustration of an Unconstitutional Riot Incitement Statute
In order to accomplish industrial or political reform, Ohio passed a law that
made it illegal to "advocate[ing]...the duty, necessity, or propriety of crime,
sabotage, violence, or unlawful methods of terrorism" and to "voluntarily
assembl[e] with any society, group, or assemblage of persons formed to teach or
advocate the doctrines of criminal syndicalism" (Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §
2923.13). A Ku Klux Klan leader was found guilty under the statute after
footage of him presiding over a KKK gathering was shown in the media.
"Therefore, we are faced with a statute that, by its own language and as applied,
purports to punish mere advocacy and to forbid, on pain of criminal
punishment, assembly with others merely to advocate the described type of
action," the US Supreme Court ruled [Footnote 4]. A law like that is prohibited
by the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
An Illustration of a Statute Void for Vagueness
A law that makes "inappropriate attire on public beaches" illegal is passed by
the state legislature. Because Larry, a law enforcement officer, believes that
women should only wear one-piece bathing suits, he arrests Kathy for wearing
two. Two days later, Sarah is arrested by Burt, another police officer, for
wearing a one-piece bathing suit at the beach. Burt believes that women should
not be seen in bathing suits in public. Sarah and Kathy may challenge the statute
on its face and argue that it is ambiguous. The definition of "inappropriate" is
ambiguous and can vary from person to person. As a result, it gives law
enforcement excessive discretion, is applied unevenly, and fails to adequately
inform Kathy, Sarah, and the general public of what conduct is illegal.
An Illustration of an Unconstitutional Riot Incitement Statute
In order to accomplish industrial or political reform, Ohio passed a law that
made it illegal to "advocate[ing]...the duty, necessity, or propriety of crime,
sabotage, violence, or unlawful methods of terrorism" and to "voluntarily
assembl[e] with any society, group, or assemblage of persons formed to teach or
advocate the doctrines of criminal syndicalism" (Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §
2923.13). A Ku Klux Klan leader was found guilty under the statute after
footage of him presiding over a KKK gathering was shown in the media.
"Therefore, we are faced with a statute that, by its own language and as applied,
purports to punish mere advocacy and to forbid, on pain of criminal
punishment, assembly with others merely to advocate the described type of
action," the US Supreme Court ruled [Footnote 4]. A law like that is prohibited
by the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
An Illustration of a Statute Void for Vagueness
A law that makes "inappropriate attire on public beaches" illegal is passed by
the state legislature. Because Larry, a law enforcement officer, believes that
women should only wear one-piece bathing suits, he arrests Kathy for wearing
two. Two days later, Sarah is arrested by Burt, another police officer, for
wearing a one-piece bathing suit at the beach. Burt believes that women should
not be seen in bathing suits in public. Sarah and Kathy may challenge the statute
on its face and argue that it is ambiguous. The definition of "inappropriate" is
ambiguous and can vary from person to person. As a result, it gives law
enforcement excessive discretion, is applied unevenly, and fails to adequately
inform Kathy, Sarah, and the general public of what conduct is illegal.
An Illustration of an Unconstitutional Riot Incitement Statute
In order to accomplish industrial or political reform, Ohio passed a law that
made it illegal to "advocate[ing]...the duty, necessity, or propriety of crime,
sabotage, violence, or unlawful methods of terrorism" and to "voluntarily
assembl[e] with any society, group, or assemblage of persons formed to teach or
advocate the doctrines of criminal syndicalism" (Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §
2923.13). A Ku Klux Klan leader was found guilty under the statute after
footage of him presiding over a KKK gathering was shown in the media.
"Therefore, we are faced with a statute that, by its own language and as applied,
purports to punish mere advocacy and to forbid, on pain of criminal
punishment, assembly with others merely to advocate the described type of
action," the US Supreme Court ruled [Footnote 4]. A law like that is prohibited
by the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
An Illustration of a Statute Void for Vagueness
A law that makes "inappropriate attire on public beaches" illegal is passed by
the state legislature. Because Larry, a law enforcement officer, believes that
women should only wear one-piece bathing suits, he arrests Kathy for wearing
two. Two days later, Sarah is arrested by Burt, another police officer, for
wearing a one-piece bathing suit at the beach. Burt believes that women should
not be seen in bathing suits in public. Sarah and Kathy may challenge the statute
on its face and argue that it is ambiguous. The definition of "inappropriate" is
ambiguous and can vary from person to person. As a result, it gives law
enforcement excessive discretion, is applied unevenly, and fails to adequately
inform Kathy, Sarah, and the general public of what conduct is illegal.
An Illustration of an Unconstitutional Riot Incitement Statute
In order to accomplish industrial or political reform, Ohio passed a law that
made it illegal to "advocate[ing]...the duty, necessity, or propriety of crime,
sabotage, violence, or unlawful methods of terrorism" and to "voluntarily
assembl[e] with any society, group, or assemblage of persons formed to teach or
advocate the doctrines of criminal syndicalism" (Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §
2923.13). A Ku Klux Klan leader was found guilty under the statute after
footage of him presiding over a KKK gathering was shown in the media.
"Therefore, we are faced with a statute that, by its own language and as applied,
purports to punish mere advocacy and to forbid, on pain of criminal
punishment, assembly with others merely to advocate the described type of
action," the US Supreme Court ruled [Footnote 4]. A law like that is prohibited
by the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
An Illustration of a Statute Void for Vagueness
A law that makes "inappropriate attire on public beaches" illegal is passed by
the state legislature. Because Larry, a law enforcement officer, believes that
women should only wear one-piece bathing suits, he arrests Kathy for wearing
two. Two days later, Sarah is arrested by Burt, another police officer, for
wearing a one-piece bathing suit at the beach. Burt believes that women should
not be seen in bathing suits in public. Sarah and Kathy may challenge the statute
on its face and argue that it is ambiguous. The definition of "inappropriate" is
ambiguous and can vary from person to person. As a result, it gives law
enforcement excessive discretion, is applied unevenly, and fails to adequately
inform Kathy, Sarah, and the general public of what conduct is illegal.
An Illustration of an Unconstitutional Riot Incitement Statute
In order to accomplish industrial or political reform, Ohio passed a law that
made it illegal to "advocate[ing]...the duty, necessity, or propriety of crime,
sabotage, violence, or unlawful methods of terrorism" and to "voluntarily
assembl[e] with any society, group, or assemblage of persons formed to teach or
advocate the doctrines of criminal syndicalism" (Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §
2923.13). A Ku Klux Klan leader was found guilty under the statute after
footage of him presiding over a KKK gathering was shown in the media.
"Therefore, we are faced with a statute that, by its own language and as applied,
purports to punish mere advocacy and to forbid, on pain of criminal
punishment, assembly with others merely to advocate the described type of
action," the US Supreme Court ruled [Footnote 4]. A law like that is prohibited
by the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
An Illustration of a Statute Void for Vagueness
A law that makes "inappropriate attire on public beaches" illegal is passed by
the state legislature. Because Larry, a law enforcement officer, believes that
women should only wear one-piece bathing suits, he arrests Kathy for wearing
two. Two days later, Sarah is arrested by Burt, another police officer, for
wearing a one-piece bathing suit at the beach. Burt believes that women should
not be seen in bathing suits in public. Sarah and Kathy may challenge the statute
on its face and argue that it is ambiguous. The definition of "inappropriate" is
ambiguous and can vary from person to person. As a result, it gives law
enforcement excessive discretion, is applied unevenly, and fails to adequately
inform Kathy, Sarah, and the general public of what conduct is illegal.
An Illustration of an Unconstitutional Riot Incitement Statute
In order to accomplish industrial or political reform, Ohio passed a law that
made it illegal to "advocate[ing]...the duty, necessity, or propriety of crime,
sabotage, violence, or unlawful methods of terrorism" and to "voluntarily
assembl[e] with any society, group, or assemblage of persons formed to teach or
advocate the doctrines of criminal syndicalism" (Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §
2923.13). A Ku Klux Klan leader was found guilty under the statute after
footage of him presiding over a KKK gathering was shown in the media.
"Therefore, we are faced with a statute that, by its own language and as applied,
purports to punish mere advocacy and to forbid, on pain of criminal
punishment, assembly with others merely to advocate the described type of
action," the US Supreme Court ruled [Footnote 4]. A law like that is prohibited
by the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
An Illustration of a Statute Void for Vagueness
A law that makes "inappropriate attire on public beaches" illegal is passed by
the state legislature. Because Larry, a law enforcement officer, believes that
women should only wear one-piece bathing suits, he arrests Kathy for wearing
two. Two days later, Sarah is arrested by Burt, another police officer, for
wearing a one-piece bathing suit at the beach. Burt believes that women should
not be seen in bathing suits in public. Sarah and Kathy may challenge the statute
on its face and argue that it is ambiguous. The definition of "inappropriate" is
ambiguous and can vary from person to person. As a result, it gives law
enforcement excessive discretion, is applied unevenly, and fails to adequately
inform Kathy, Sarah, and the general public of what conduct is illegal.
An Illustration of an Unconstitutional Riot Incitement Statute
In order to accomplish industrial or political reform, Ohio passed a law that
made it illegal to "advocate[ing]...the duty, necessity, or propriety of crime,
sabotage, violence, or unlawful methods of terrorism" and to "voluntarily
assembl[e] with any society, group, or assemblage of persons formed to teach or
advocate the doctrines of criminal syndicalism" (Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §
2923.13). A Ku Klux Klan leader was found guilty under the statute after
footage of him presiding over a KKK gathering was shown in the media.
"Therefore, we are faced with a statute that, by its own language and as applied,
purports to punish mere advocacy and to forbid, on pain of criminal
punishment, assembly with others merely to advocate the described type of
action," the US Supreme Court ruled [Footnote 4]. A law like that is prohibited
by the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
An Illustration of a Statute Void for Vagueness
A law that makes "inappropriate attire on public beaches" illegal is passed by
the state legislature. Because Larry, a law enforcement officer, believes that
women should only wear one-piece bathing suits, he arrests Kathy for wearing
two. Two days later, Sarah is arrested by Burt, another police officer, for
wearing a one-piece bathing suit at the beach. Burt believes that women should
not be seen in bathing suits in public. Sarah and Kathy may challenge the statute
on its face and argue that it is ambiguous. The definition of "inappropriate" is
ambiguous and can vary from person to person. As a result, it gives law
enforcement excessive discretion, is applied unevenly, and fails to adequately
inform Kathy, Sarah, and the general public of what conduct is illegal.
An Illustration of an Unconstitutional Riot Incitement Statute
In order to accomplish industrial or political reform, Ohio passed a law that
made it illegal to "advocate[ing]...the duty, necessity, or propriety of crime,
sabotage, violence, or unlawful methods of terrorism" and to "voluntarily
assembl[e] with any society, group, or assemblage of persons formed to teach or
advocate the doctrines of criminal syndicalism" (Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §
2923.13). A Ku Klux Klan leader was found guilty under the statute after
footage of him presiding over a KKK gathering was shown in the media.
"Therefore, we are faced with a statute that, by its own language and as applied,
purports to punish mere advocacy and to forbid, on pain of criminal
punishment, assembly with others merely to advocate the described type of
action," the US Supreme Court ruled [Footnote 4]. A law like that is prohibited
by the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
An Illustration of a Statute Void for Vagueness
A law that makes "inappropriate attire on public beaches" illegal is passed by
the state legislature. Because Larry, a law enforcement officer, believes that
women should only wear one-piece bathing suits, he arrests Kathy for wearing
two. Two days later, Sarah is arrested by Burt, another police officer, for
wearing a one-piece bathing suit at the beach. Burt believes that women should
not be seen in bathing suits in public. Sarah and Kathy may challenge the statute
on its face and argue that it is ambiguous. The definition of "inappropriate" is
ambiguous and can vary from person to person. As a result, it gives law
enforcement excessive discretion, is applied unevenly, and fails to adequately
inform Kathy, Sarah, and the general public of what conduct is illegal.
An Illustration of an Unconstitutional Riot Incitement Statute
In order to accomplish industrial or political reform, Ohio passed a law that
made it illegal to "advocate[ing]...the duty, necessity, or propriety of crime,
sabotage, violence, or unlawful methods of terrorism" and to "voluntarily
assembl[e] with any society, group, or assemblage of persons formed to teach or
advocate the doctrines of criminal syndicalism" (Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §
2923.13). A Ku Klux Klan leader was found guilty under the statute after
footage of him presiding over a KKK gathering was shown in the media.
"Therefore, we are faced with a statute that, by its own language and as applied,
purports to punish mere advocacy and to forbid, on pain of criminal
punishment, assembly with others merely to advocate the described type of
action," the US Supreme Court ruled [Footnote 4]. A law like that is prohibited
by the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
An Illustration of a Statute Void for Vagueness
A law that makes "inappropriate attire on public beaches" illegal is passed by
the state legislature. Because Larry, a law enforcement officer, believes that
women should only wear one-piece bathing suits, he arrests Kathy for wearing
two. Two days later, Sarah is arrested by Burt, another police officer, for
wearing a one-piece bathing suit at the beach. Burt believes that women should
not be seen in bathing suits in public. Sarah and Kathy may challenge the statute
on its face and argue that it is ambiguous. The definition of "inappropriate" is
ambiguous and can vary from person to person. As a result, it gives law
enforcement excessive discretion, is applied unevenly, and fails to adequately
inform Kathy, Sarah, and the general public of what conduct is illegal.
An Illustration of an Unconstitutional Riot Incitement Statute
In order to accomplish industrial or political reform, Ohio passed a law that
made it illegal to "advocate[ing]...the duty, necessity, or propriety of crime,
sabotage, violence, or unlawful methods of terrorism" and to "voluntarily
assembl[e] with any society, group, or assemblage of persons formed to teach or
advocate the doctrines of criminal syndicalism" (Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §
2923.13). A Ku Klux Klan leader was found guilty under the statute after
footage of him presiding over a KKK gathering was shown in the media.
"Therefore, we are faced with a statute that, by its own language and as applied,
purports to punish mere advocacy and to forbid, on pain of criminal
punishment, assembly with others merely to advocate the described type of
action," the US Supreme Court ruled [Footnote 4]. A law like that is prohibited
by the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
An Illustration of a Statute Void for Vagueness
A law that makes "inappropriate attire on public beaches" illegal is passed by
the state legislature. Because Larry, a law enforcement officer, believes that
women should only wear one-piece bathing suits, he arrests Kathy for wearing
two. Two days later, Sarah is arrested by Burt, another police officer, for
wearing a one-piece bathing suit at the beach. Burt believes that women should
not be seen in bathing suits in public. Sarah and Kathy may challenge the statute
on its face and argue that it is ambiguous. The definition of "inappropriate" is
ambiguous and can vary from person to person. As a result, it gives law
enforcement excessive discretion, is applied unevenly, and fails to adequately
inform Kathy, Sarah, and the general public of what conduct is illegal.
An Illustration of an Unconstitutional Riot Incitement Statute
In order to accomplish industrial or political reform, Ohio passed a law that
made it illegal to "advocate[ing]...the duty, necessity, or propriety of crime,
sabotage, violence, or unlawful methods of terrorism" and to "voluntarily
assembl[e] with any society, group, or assemblage of persons formed to teach or
advocate the doctrines of criminal syndicalism" (Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §
2923.13). A Ku Klux Klan leader was found guilty under the statute after
footage of him presiding over a KKK gathering was shown in the media.
"Therefore, we are faced with a statute that, by its own language and as applied,
purports to punish mere advocacy and to forbid, on pain of criminal
punishment, assembly with others merely to advocate the described type of
action," the US Supreme Court ruled [Footnote 4]. A law like that is prohibited
by the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
An Illustration of a Statute Void for Vagueness
A law that makes "inappropriate attire on public beaches" illegal is passed by
the state legislature. Because Larry, a law enforcement officer, believes that
women should only wear one-piece bathing suits, he arrests Kathy for wearing
two. Two days later, Sarah is arrested by Burt, another police officer, for
wearing a one-piece bathing suit at the beach. Burt believes that women should
not be seen in bathing suits in public. Sarah and Kathy may challenge the statute
on its face and argue that it is ambiguous. The definition of "inappropriate" is
ambiguous and can vary from person to person. As a result, it gives law
enforcement excessive discretion, is applied unevenly, and fails to adequately
inform Kathy, Sarah, and the general public of what conduct is illegal.
An Illustration of an Unconstitutional Riot Incitement Statute
In order to accomplish industrial or political reform, Ohio passed a law that
made it illegal to "advocate[ing]...the duty, necessity, or propriety of crime,
sabotage, violence, or unlawful methods of terrorism" and to "voluntarily
assembl[e] with any society, group, or assemblage of persons formed to teach or
advocate the doctrines of criminal syndicalism" (Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §
2923.13). A Ku Klux Klan leader was found guilty under the statute after
footage of him presiding over a KKK gathering was shown in the media.
"Therefore, we are faced with a statute that, by its own language and as applied,
purports to punish mere advocacy and to forbid, on pain of criminal
punishment, assembly with others merely to advocate the described type of
action," the US Supreme Court ruled [Footnote 4]. A law like that is prohibited
by the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
An Illustration of a Statute Void for Vagueness
A law that makes "inappropriate attire on public beaches" illegal is passed by
the state legislature. Because Larry, a law enforcement officer, believes that
women should only wear one-piece bathing suits, he arrests Kathy for wearing
two. Two days later, Sarah is arrested by Burt, another police officer, for
wearing a one-piece bathing suit at the beach. Burt believes that women should
not be seen in bathing suits in public. Sarah and Kathy may challenge the statute
on its face and argue that it is ambiguous. The definition of "inappropriate" is
ambiguous and can vary from person to person. As a result, it gives law
enforcement excessive discretion, is applied unevenly, and fails to adequately
inform Kathy, Sarah, and the general public of what conduct is illegal.
An Illustration of an Unconstitutional Riot Incitement Statute
In order to accomplish industrial or political reform, Ohio passed a law that
made it illegal to "advocate[ing]...the duty, necessity, or propriety of crime,
sabotage, violence, or unlawful methods of terrorism" and to "voluntarily
assembl[e] with any society, group, or assemblage of persons formed to teach or
advocate the doctrines of criminal syndicalism" (Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §
2923.13). A Ku Klux Klan leader was found guilty under the statute after
footage of him presiding over a KKK gathering was shown in the media.
"Therefore, we are faced with a statute that, by its own language and as applied,
purports to punish mere advocacy and to forbid, on pain of criminal
punishment, assembly with others merely to advocate the described type of
action," the US Supreme Court ruled [Footnote 4]. A law like that is prohibited
by the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
An Illustration of a Statute Void for Vagueness
A law that makes "inappropriate attire on public beaches" illegal is passed by
the state legislature. Because Larry, a law enforcement officer, believes that
women should only wear one-piece bathing suits, he arrests Kathy for wearing
two. Two days later, Sarah is arrested by Burt, another police officer, for
wearing a one-piece bathing suit at the beach. Burt believes that women should
not be seen in bathing suits in public. Sarah and Kathy may challenge the statute
on its face and argue that it is ambiguous. The definition of "inappropriate" is
ambiguous and can vary from person to person. As a result, it gives law
enforcement excessive discretion, is applied unevenly, and fails to adequately
inform Kathy, Sarah, and the general public of what conduct is illegal.
An Illustration of an Unconstitutional Riot Incitement Statute
In order to accomplish industrial or political reform, Ohio passed a law that
made it illegal to "advocate[ing]...the duty, necessity, or propriety of crime,
sabotage, violence, or unlawful methods of terrorism" and to "voluntarily
assembl[e] with any society, group, or assemblage of persons formed to teach or
advocate the doctrines of criminal syndicalism" (Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §
2923.13). A Ku Klux Klan leader was found guilty under the statute after
footage of him presiding over a KKK gathering was shown in the media.
"Therefore, we are faced with a statute that, by its own language and as applied,
purports to punish mere advocacy and to forbid, on pain of criminal
punishment, assembly with others merely to advocate the described type of
action," the US Supreme Court ruled [Footnote 4]. A law like that is prohibited
by the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
An Illustration of a Statute Void for Vagueness
A law that makes "inappropriate attire on public beaches" illegal is passed by
the state legislature. Because Larry, a law enforcement officer, believes that
women should only wear one-piece bathing suits, he arrests Kathy for wearing
two. Two days later, Sarah is arrested by Burt, another police officer, for
wearing a one-piece bathing suit at the beach. Burt believes that women should
not be seen in bathing suits in public. Sarah and Kathy may challenge the statute
on its face and argue that it is ambiguous. The definition of "inappropriate" is
ambiguous and can vary from person to person. As a result, it gives law
enforcement excessive discretion, is applied unevenly, and fails to adequately
inform Kathy, Sarah, and the general public of what conduct is illegal.
An Illustration of an Unconstitutional Riot Incitement Statute
In order to accomplish industrial or political reform, Ohio passed a law that
made it illegal to "advocate[ing]...the duty, necessity, or propriety of crime,
sabotage, violence, or unlawful methods of terrorism" and to "voluntarily
assembl[e] with any society, group, or assemblage of persons formed to teach or
advocate the doctrines of criminal syndicalism" (Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §
2923.13). A Ku Klux Klan leader was found guilty under the statute after
footage of him presiding over a KKK gathering was shown in the media.
"Therefore, we are faced with a statute that, by its own language and as applied,
purports to punish mere advocacy and to forbid, on pain of criminal
punishment, assembly with others merely to advocate the described type of
action," the US Supreme Court ruled [Footnote 4]. A law like that is prohibited
by the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
An Illustration of a Statute Void for Vagueness
A law that makes "inappropriate attire on public beaches" illegal is passed by
the state legislature. Because Larry, a law enforcement officer, believes that
women should only wear one-piece bathing suits, he arrests Kathy for wearing
two. Two days later, Sarah is arrested by Burt, another police officer, for
wearing a one-piece bathing suit at the beach. Burt believes that women should
not be seen in bathing suits in public. Sarah and Kathy may challenge the statute
on its face and argue that it is ambiguous. The definition of "inappropriate" is
ambiguous and can vary from person to person. As a result, it gives law
enforcement excessive discretion, is applied unevenly, and fails to adequately
inform Kathy, Sarah, and the general public of what conduct is illegal.
An Illustration of an Unconstitutional Riot Incitement Statute
In order to accomplish industrial or political reform, Ohio passed a law that
made it illegal to "advocate[ing]...the duty, necessity, or propriety of crime,
sabotage, violence, or unlawful methods of terrorism" and to "voluntarily
assembl[e] with any society, group, or assemblage of persons formed to teach or
advocate the doctrines of criminal syndicalism" (Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §
2923.13). A Ku Klux Klan leader was found guilty under the statute after
footage of him presiding over a KKK gathering was shown in the media.
"Therefore, we are faced with a statute that, by its own language and as applied,
purports to punish mere advocacy and to forbid, on pain of criminal
punishment, assembly with others merely to advocate the described type of
action," the US Supreme Court ruled [Footnote 4]. A law like that is prohibited
by the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
An Illustration of a Statute Void for Vagueness
A law that makes "inappropriate attire on public beaches" illegal is passed by
the state legislature. Because Larry, a law enforcement officer, believes that
women should only wear one-piece bathing suits, he arrests Kathy for wearing
two. Two days later, Sarah is arrested by Burt, another police officer, for
wearing a one-piece bathing suit at the beach. Burt believes that women should
not be seen in bathing suits in public. Sarah and Kathy may challenge the statute
on its face and argue that it is ambiguous. The definition of "inappropriate" is
ambiguous and can vary from person to person. As a result, it gives law
enforcement excessive discretion, is applied unevenly, and fails to adequately
inform Kathy, Sarah, and the general public of what conduct is illegal.
An Illustration of an Unconstitutional Riot Incitement Statute
In order to accomplish industrial or political reform, Ohio passed a law that
made it illegal to "advocate[ing]...the duty, necessity, or propriety of crime,
sabotage, violence, or unlawful methods of terrorism" and to "voluntarily
assembl[e] with any society, group, or assemblage of persons formed to teach or
advocate the doctrines of criminal syndicalism" (Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §
2923.13). A Ku Klux Klan leader was found guilty under the statute after
footage of him presiding over a KKK gathering was shown in the media.
"Therefore, we are faced with a statute that, by its own language and as applied,
purports to punish mere advocacy and to forbid, on pain of criminal
punishment, assembly with others merely to advocate the described type of
action," the US Supreme Court ruled [Footnote 4]. A law like that is prohibited
by the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
An Illustration of a Statute Void for Vagueness
A law that makes "inappropriate attire on public beaches" illegal is passed by
the state legislature. Because Larry, a law enforcement officer, believes that
women should only wear one-piece bathing suits, he arrests Kathy for wearing
two. Two days later, Sarah is arrested by Burt, another police officer, for
wearing a one-piece bathing suit at the beach. Burt believes that women should
not be seen in bathing suits in public. Sarah and Kathy may challenge the statute
on its face and argue that it is ambiguous. The definition of "inappropriate" is
ambiguous and can vary from person to person. As a result, it gives law
enforcement excessive discretion, is applied unevenly, and fails to adequately
inform Kathy, Sarah, and the general public of what conduct is illegal.
An Illustration of an Unconstitutional Riot Incitement Statute
In order to accomplish industrial or political reform, Ohio passed a law that
made it illegal to "advocate[ing]...the duty, necessity, or propriety of crime,
sabotage, violence, or unlawful methods of terrorism" and to "voluntarily
assembl[e] with any society, group, or assemblage of persons formed to teach or
advocate the doctrines of criminal syndicalism" (Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §
2923.13). A Ku Klux Klan leader was found guilty under the statute after
footage of him presiding over a KKK gathering was shown in the media.
"Therefore, we are faced with a statute that, by its own language and as applied,
purports to punish mere advocacy and to forbid, on pain of criminal
punishment, assembly with others merely to advocate the described type of
action," the US Supreme Court ruled [Footnote 4]. A law like that is prohibited
by the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
An Illustration of a Statute Void for Vagueness
A law that makes "inappropriate attire on public beaches" illegal is passed by
the state legislature. Because Larry, a law enforcement officer, believes that
women should only wear one-piece bathing suits, he arrests Kathy for wearing
two. Two days later, Sarah is arrested by Burt, another police officer, for
wearing a one-piece bathing suit at the beach. Burt believes that women should
not be seen in bathing suits in public. Sarah and Kathy may challenge the statute
on its face and argue that it is ambiguous. The definition of "inappropriate" is
ambiguous and can vary from person to person. As a result, it gives law
enforcement excessive discretion, is applied unevenly, and fails to adequately
inform Kathy, Sarah, and the general public of what conduct is illegal.
An Illustration of an Unconstitutional Riot Incitement Statute
In order to accomplish industrial or political reform, Ohio passed a law that
made it illegal to "advocate[ing]...the duty, necessity, or propriety of crime,
sabotage, violence, or unlawful methods of terrorism" and to "voluntarily
assembl[e] with any society, group, or assemblage of persons formed to teach or
advocate the doctrines of criminal syndicalism" (Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §
2923.13). A Ku Klux Klan leader was found guilty under the statute after
footage of him presiding over a KKK gathering was shown in the media.
"Therefore, we are faced with a statute that, by its own language and as applied,
purports to punish mere advocacy and to forbid, on pain of criminal
punishment, assembly with others merely to advocate the described type of
action," the US Supreme Court ruled [Footnote 4]. A law like that is prohibited
by the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
An Illustration of a Statute Void for Vagueness
A law that makes "inappropriate attire on public beaches" illegal is passed by
the state legislature. Because Larry, a law enforcement officer, believes that
women should only wear one-piece bathing suits, he arrests Kathy for wearing
two. Two days later, Sarah is arrested by Burt, another police officer, for
wearing a one-piece bathing suit at the beach. Burt believes that women should
not be seen in bathing suits in public. Sarah and Kathy may challenge the statute
on its face and argue that it is ambiguous. The definition of "inappropriate" is
ambiguous and can vary from person to person. As a result, it gives law
enforcement excessive discretion, is applied unevenly, and fails to adequately
inform Kathy, Sarah, and the general public of what conduct is illegal.
An Illustration of an Unconstitutional Riot Incitement Statute
In order to accomplish industrial or political reform, Ohio passed a law that
made it illegal to "advocate[ing]...the duty, necessity, or propriety of crime,
sabotage, violence, or unlawful methods of terrorism" and to "voluntarily
assembl[e] with any society, group, or assemblage of persons formed to teach or
advocate the doctrines of criminal syndicalism" (Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §
2923.13). A Ku Klux Klan leader was found guilty under the statute after
footage of him presiding over a KKK gathering was shown in the media.
"Therefore, we are faced with a statute that, by its own language and as applied,
purports to punish mere advocacy and to forbid, on pain of criminal
punishment, assembly with others merely to advocate the described type of
action," the US Supreme Court ruled [Footnote 4]. A law like that is prohibited
by the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
An Illustration of a Statute Void for Vagueness
A law that makes "inappropriate attire on public beaches" illegal is passed by
the state legislature. Because Larry, a law enforcement officer, believes that
women should only wear one-piece bathing suits, he arrests Kathy for wearing
two. Two days later, Sarah is arrested by Burt, another police officer, for
wearing a one-piece bathing suit at the beach. Burt believes that women should
not be seen in bathing suits in public. Sarah and Kathy may challenge the statute
on its face and argue that it is ambiguous. The definition of "inappropriate" is
ambiguous and can vary from person to person. As a result, it gives law
enforcement excessive discretion, is applied unevenly, and fails to adequately
inform Kathy, Sarah, and the general public of what conduct is illegal.
An Illustration of an Unconstitutional Riot Incitement Statute
In order to accomplish industrial or political reform, Ohio passed a law that
made it illegal to "advocate[ing]...the duty, necessity, or propriety of crime,
sabotage, violence, or unlawful methods of terrorism" and to "voluntarily
assembl[e] with any society, group, or assemblage of persons formed to teach or
advocate the doctrines of criminal syndicalism" (Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §
2923.13). A Ku Klux Klan leader was found guilty under the statute after
footage of him presiding over a KKK gathering was shown in the media.
"Therefore, we are faced with a statute that, by its own language and as applied,
purports to punish mere advocacy and to forbid, on pain of criminal
punishment, assembly with others merely to advocate the described type of
action," the US Supreme Court ruled [Footnote 4]. A law like that is prohibited
by the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
An Illustration of a Statute Void for Vagueness
A law that makes "inappropriate attire on public beaches" illegal is passed by
the state legislature. Because Larry, a law enforcement officer, believes that
women should only wear one-piece bathing suits, he arrests Kathy for wearing
two. Two days later, Sarah is arrested by Burt, another police officer, for
wearing a one-piece bathing suit at the beach. Burt believes that women should
not be seen in bathing suits in public. Sarah and Kathy may challenge the statute
on its face and argue that it is ambiguous. The definition of "inappropriate" is
ambiguous and can vary from person to person. As a result, it gives law
enforcement excessive discretion, is applied unevenly, and fails to adequately
inform Kathy, Sarah, and the general public of what conduct is illegal.
An Illustration of an Unconstitutional Riot Incitement Statute
In order to accomplish industrial or political reform, Ohio passed a law that
made it illegal to "advocate[ing]...the duty, necessity, or propriety of crime,
sabotage, violence, or unlawful methods of terrorism" and to "voluntarily
assembl[e] with any society, group, or assemblage of persons formed to teach or
advocate the doctrines of criminal syndicalism" (Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §
2923.13). A Ku Klux Klan leader was found guilty under the statute after
footage of him presiding over a KKK gathering was shown in the media.
"Therefore, we are faced with a statute that, by its own language and as applied,
purports to punish mere advocacy and to forbid, on pain of criminal
punishment, assembly with others merely to advocate the described type of
action," the US Supreme Court ruled [Footnote 4]. A law like that is prohibited
by the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
An Illustration of a Statute Void for Vagueness
A law that makes "inappropriate attire on public beaches" illegal is passed by
the state legislature. Because Larry, a law enforcement officer, believes that
women should only wear one-piece bathing suits, he arrests Kathy for wearing
two. Two days later, Sarah is arrested by Burt, another police officer, for
wearing a one-piece bathing suit at the beach. Burt believes that women should
not be seen in bathing suits in public. Sarah and Kathy may challenge the statute
on its face and argue that it is ambiguous. The definition of "inappropriate" is
ambiguous and can vary from person to person. As a result, it gives law
enforcement excessive discretion, is applied unevenly, and fails to adequately
inform Kathy, Sarah, and the general public of what conduct is illegal.
An Illustration of an Unconstitutional Riot Incitement Statute
In order to accomplish industrial or political reform, Ohio passed a law that
made it illegal to "advocate[ing]...the duty, necessity, or propriety of crime,
sabotage, violence, or unlawful methods of terrorism" and to "voluntarily
assembl[e] with any society, group, or assemblage of persons formed to teach or
advocate the doctrines of criminal syndicalism" (Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §
2923.13). A Ku Klux Klan leader was found guilty under the statute after
footage of him presiding over a KKK gathering was shown in the media.
"Therefore, we are faced with a statute that, by its own language and as applied,
purports to punish mere advocacy and to forbid, on pain of criminal
punishment, assembly with others merely to advocate the described type of
action," the US Supreme Court ruled [Footnote 4]. A law like that is prohibited
by the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
An Illustration of a Statute Void for Vagueness
A law that makes "inappropriate attire on public beaches" illegal is passed by
the state legislature. Because Larry, a law enforcement officer, believes that
women should only wear one-piece bathing suits, he arrests Kathy for wearing
two. Two days later, Sarah is arrested by Burt, another police officer, for
wearing a one-piece bathing suit at the beach. Burt believes that women should
not be seen in bathing suits in public. Sarah and Kathy may challenge the statute
on its face and argue that it is ambiguous. The definition of "inappropriate" is
ambiguous and can vary from person to person. As a result, it gives law
enforcement excessive discretion, is applied unevenly, and fails to adequately
inform Kathy, Sarah, and the general public of what conduct is illegal.
An Illustration of an Unconstitutional Riot Incitement Statute
In order to accomplish industrial or political reform, Ohio passed a law that
made it illegal to "advocate[ing]...the duty, necessity, or propriety of crime,
sabotage, violence, or unlawful methods of terrorism" and to "voluntarily
assembl[e] with any society, group, or assemblage of persons formed to teach or
advocate the doctrines of criminal syndicalism" (Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §
2923.13). A Ku Klux Klan leader was found guilty under the statute after
footage of him presiding over a KKK gathering was shown in the media.
"Therefore, we are faced with a statute that, by its own language and as applied,
purports to punish mere advocacy and to forbid, on pain of criminal
punishment, assembly with others merely to advocate the described type of
action," the US Supreme Court ruled [Footnote 4]. A law like that is prohibited
by the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
An Illustration of a Statute Void for Vagueness
A law that makes "inappropriate attire on public beaches" illegal is passed by
the state legislature. Because Larry, a law enforcement officer, believes that
women should only wear one-piece bathing suits, he arrests Kathy for wearing
two. Two days later, Sarah is arrested by Burt, another police officer, for
wearing a one-piece bathing suit at the beach. Burt believes that women should
not be seen in bathing suits in public. Sarah and Kathy may challenge the statute
on its face and argue that it is ambiguous. The definition of "inappropriate" is
ambiguous and can vary from person to person. As a result, it gives law
enforcement excessive discretion, is applied unevenly, and fails to adequately
inform Kathy, Sarah, and the general public of what conduct is illegal.
An Illustration of an Unconstitutional Riot Incitement Statute
In order to accomplish industrial or political reform, Ohio passed a law that
made it illegal to "advocate[ing]...the duty, necessity, or propriety of crime,
sabotage, violence, or unlawful methods of terrorism" and to "voluntarily
assembl[e] with any society, group, or assemblage of persons formed to teach or
advocate the doctrines of criminal syndicalism" (Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §
2923.13). A Ku Klux Klan leader was found guilty under the statute after
footage of him presiding over a KKK gathering was shown in the media.
"Therefore, we are faced with a statute that, by its own language and as applied,
purports to punish mere advocacy and to forbid, on pain of criminal
punishment, assembly with others merely to advocate the described type of
action," the US Supreme Court ruled [Footnote 4]. A law like that is prohibited
by the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
An Illustration of a Statute Void for Vagueness
A law that makes "inappropriate attire on public beaches" illegal is passed by
the state legislature. Because Larry, a law enforcement officer, believes that
women should only wear one-piece bathing suits, he arrests Kathy for wearing
two. Two days later, Sarah is arrested by Burt, another police officer, for
wearing a one-piece bathing suit at the beach. Burt believes that women should
not be seen in bathing suits in public. Sarah and Kathy may challenge the statute
on its face and argue that it is ambiguous. The definition of "inappropriate" is
ambiguous and can vary from person to person. As a result, it gives law
enforcement excessive discretion, is applied unevenly, and fails to adequately
inform Kathy, Sarah, and the general public of what conduct is illegal.
An Illustration of an Unconstitutional Riot Incitement Statute
In order to accomplish industrial or political reform, Ohio passed a law that
made it illegal to "advocate[ing]...the duty, necessity, or propriety of crime,
sabotage, violence, or unlawful methods of terrorism" and to "voluntarily
assembl[e] with any society, group, or assemblage of persons formed to teach or
advocate the doctrines of criminal syndicalism" (Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §
2923.13). A Ku Klux Klan leader was found guilty under the statute after
footage of him presiding over a KKK gathering was shown in the media.
"Therefore, we are faced with a statute that, by its own language and as applied,
purports to punish mere advocacy and to forbid, on pain of criminal
punishment, assembly with others merely to advocate the described type of
action," the US Supreme Court ruled [Footnote 4]. A law like that is prohibited
by the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
An Illustration of a Statute Void for Vagueness
A law that makes "inappropriate attire on public beaches" illegal is passed by
the state legislature. Because Larry, a law enforcement officer, believes that
women should only wear one-piece bathing suits, he arrests Kathy for wearing
two. Two days later, Sarah is arrested by Burt, another police officer, for
wearing a one-piece bathing suit at the beach. Burt believes that women should
not be seen in bathing suits in public. Sarah and Kathy may challenge the statute
on its face and argue that it is ambiguous. The definition of "inappropriate" is
ambiguous and can vary from person to person. As a result, it gives law
enforcement excessive discretion, is applied unevenly, and fails to adequately
inform Kathy, Sarah, and the general public of what conduct is illegal.
An Illustration of an Unconstitutional Riot Incitement Statute
In order to accomplish industrial or political reform, Ohio passed a law that
made it illegal to "advocate[ing]...the duty, necessity, or propriety of crime,
sabotage, violence, or unlawful methods of terrorism" and to "voluntarily
assembl[e] with any society, group, or assemblage of persons formed to teach or
advocate the doctrines of criminal syndicalism" (Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §
2923.13). A Ku Klux Klan leader was found guilty under the statute after
footage of him presiding over a KKK gathering was shown in the media.
"Therefore, we are faced with a statute that, by its own language and as applied,
purports to punish mere advocacy and to forbid, on pain of criminal
punishment, assembly with others merely to advocate the described type of
action," the US Supreme Court ruled [Footnote 4]. A law like that is prohibited
by the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
An Illustration of a Statute Void for Vagueness
A law that makes "inappropriate attire on public beaches" illegal is passed by
the state legislature. Because Larry, a law enforcement officer, believes that
women should only wear one-piece bathing suits, he arrests Kathy for wearing
two. Two days later, Sarah is arrested by Burt, another police officer, for
wearing a one-piece bathing suit at the beach. Burt believes that women should
not be seen in bathing suits in public. Sarah and Kathy may challenge the statute
on its face and argue that it is ambiguous. The definition of "inappropriate" is
ambiguous and can vary from person to person. As a result, it gives law
enforcement excessive discretion, is applied unevenly, and fails to adequately
inform Kathy, Sarah, and the general public of what conduct is illegal.
An Illustration of an Unconstitutional Riot Incitement Statute
In order to accomplish industrial or political reform, Ohio passed a law that
made it illegal to "advocate[ing]...the duty, necessity, or propriety of crime,
sabotage, violence, or unlawful methods of terrorism" and to "voluntarily
assembl[e] with any society, group, or assemblage of persons formed to teach or
advocate the doctrines of criminal syndicalism" (Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §
2923.13). A Ku Klux Klan leader was found guilty under the statute after
footage of him presiding over a KKK gathering was shown in the media.
"Therefore, we are faced with a statute that, by its own language and as applied,
purports to punish mere advocacy and to forbid, on pain of criminal
punishment, assembly with others merely to advocate the described type of
action," the US Supreme Court ruled [Footnote 4]. A law like that is prohibited
by the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
An Illustration of a Statute Void for Vagueness
A law that makes "inappropriate attire on public beaches" illegal is passed by
the state legislature. Because Larry, a law enforcement officer, believes that
women should only wear one-piece bathing suits, he arrests Kathy for wearing
two. Two days later, Sarah is arrested by Burt, another police officer, for
wearing a one-piece bathing suit at the beach. Burt believes that women should
not be seen in bathing suits in public. Sarah and Kathy may challenge the statute
on its face and argue that it is ambiguous. The definition of "inappropriate" is
ambiguous and can vary from person to person. As a result, it gives law
enforcement excessive discretion, is applied unevenly, and fails to adequately
inform Kathy, Sarah, and the general public of what conduct is illegal.
An Illustration of an Unconstitutional Riot Incitement Statute
In order to accomplish industrial or political reform, Ohio passed a law that
made it illegal to "advocate[ing]...the duty, necessity, or propriety of crime,
sabotage, violence, or unlawful methods of terrorism" and to "voluntarily
assembl[e] with any society, group, or assemblage of persons formed to teach or
advocate the doctrines of criminal syndicalism" (Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §
2923.13). A Ku Klux Klan leader was found guilty under the statute after
footage of him presiding over a KKK gathering was shown in the media.
"Therefore, we are faced with a statute that, by its own language and as applied,
purports to punish mere advocacy and to forbid, on pain of criminal
punishment, assembly with others merely to advocate the described type of
action," the US Supreme Court ruled [Footnote 4]. A law like that is prohibited
by the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
An Illustration of a Statute Void for Vagueness
A law that makes "inappropriate attire on public beaches" illegal is passed by
the state legislature. Because Larry, a law enforcement officer, believes that
women should only wear one-piece bathing suits, he arrests Kathy for wearing
two. Two days later, Sarah is arrested by Burt, another police officer, for
wearing a one-piece bathing suit at the beach. Burt believes that women should
not be seen in bathing suits in public. Sarah and Kathy may challenge the statute
on its face and argue that it is ambiguous. The definition of "inappropriate" is
ambiguous and can vary from person to person. As a result, it gives law
enforcement excessive discretion, is applied unevenly, and fails to adequately
inform Kathy, Sarah, and the general public of what conduct is illegal.
An Illustration of an Unconstitutional Riot Incitement Statute
In order to accomplish industrial or political reform, Ohio passed a law that
made it illegal to "advocate[ing]...the duty, necessity, or propriety of crime,
sabotage, violence, or unlawful methods of terrorism" and to "voluntarily
assembl[e] with any society, group, or assemblage of persons formed to teach or
advocate the doctrines of criminal syndicalism" (Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §
2923.13). A Ku Klux Klan leader was found guilty under the statute after
footage of him presiding over a KKK gathering was shown in the media.
"Therefore, we are faced with a statute that, by its own language and as applied,
purports to punish mere advocacy and to forbid, on pain of criminal
punishment, assembly with others merely to advocate the described type of
action," the US Supreme Court ruled [Footnote 4]. A law like that is prohibited
by the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
An Illustration of a Statute Void for Vagueness
A law that makes "inappropriate attire on public beaches" illegal is passed by
the state legislature. Because Larry, a law enforcement officer, believes that
women should only wear one-piece bathing suits, he arrests Kathy for wearing
two. Two days later, Sarah is arrested by Burt, another police officer, for
wearing a one-piece bathing suit at the beach. Burt believes that women should
not be seen in bathing suits in public. Sarah and Kathy may challenge the statute
on its face and argue that it is ambiguous. The definition of "inappropriate" is
ambiguous and can vary from person to person. As a result, it gives law
enforcement excessive discretion, is applied unevenly, and fails to adequately
inform Kathy, Sarah, and the general public of what conduct is illegal.
An Illustration of an Unconstitutional Riot Incitement Statute
In order to accomplish industrial or political reform, Ohio passed a law that
made it illegal to "advocate[ing]...the duty, necessity, or propriety of crime,
sabotage, violence, or unlawful methods of terrorism" and to "voluntarily
assembl[e] with any society, group, or assemblage of persons formed to teach or
advocate the doctrines of criminal syndicalism" (Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §
2923.13). A Ku Klux Klan leader was found guilty under the statute after
footage of him presiding over a KKK gathering was shown in the media.
"Therefore, we are faced with a statute that, by its own language and as applied,
purports to punish mere advocacy and to forbid, on pain of criminal
punishment, assembly with others merely to advocate the described type of
action," the US Supreme Court ruled [Footnote 4]. A law like that is prohibited
by the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
An Illustration of a Statute Void for Vagueness
A law that makes "inappropriate attire on public beaches" illegal is passed by
the state legislature. Because Larry, a law enforcement officer, believes that
women should only wear one-piece bathing suits, he arrests Kathy for wearing
two. Two days later, Sarah is arrested by Burt, another police officer, for
wearing a one-piece bathing suit at the beach. Burt believes that women should
not be seen in bathing suits in public. Sarah and Kathy may challenge the statute
on its face and argue that it is ambiguous. The definition of "inappropriate" is
ambiguous and can vary from person to person. As a result, it gives law
enforcement excessive discretion, is applied unevenly, and fails to adequately
inform Kathy, Sarah, and the general public of what conduct is illegal.
An Illustration of an Unconstitutional Riot Incitement Statute
In order to accomplish industrial or political reform, Ohio passed a law that
made it illegal to "advocate[ing]...the duty, necessity, or propriety of crime,
sabotage, violence, or unlawful methods of terrorism" and to "voluntarily
assembl[e] with any society, group, or assemblage of persons formed to teach or
advocate the doctrines of criminal syndicalism" (Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §
2923.13). A Ku Klux Klan leader was found guilty under the statute after
footage of him presiding over a KKK gathering was shown in the media.
"Therefore, we are faced with a statute that, by its own language and as applied,
purports to punish mere advocacy and to forbid, on pain of criminal
punishment, assembly with others merely to advocate the described type of
action," the US Supreme Court ruled [Footnote 4]. A law like that is prohibited
by the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
An Illustration of a Statute Void for Vagueness
A law that makes "inappropriate attire on public beaches" illegal is passed by
the state legislature. Because Larry, a law enforcement officer, believes that
women should only wear one-piece bathing suits, he arrests Kathy for wearing
two. Two days later, Sarah is arrested by Burt, another police officer, for
wearing a one-piece bathing suit at the beach. Burt believes that women should
not be seen in bathing suits in public. Sarah and Kathy may challenge the statute
on its face and argue that it is ambiguous. The definition of "inappropriate" is
ambiguous and can vary from person to person. As a result, it gives law
enforcement excessive discretion, is applied unevenly, and fails to adequately
inform Kathy, Sarah, and the general public of what conduct is illegal.
An Illustration of an Unconstitutional Riot Incitement Statute
In order to accomplish industrial or political reform, Ohio passed a law that
made it illegal to "advocate[ing]...the duty, necessity, or propriety of crime,
sabotage, violence, or unlawful methods of terrorism" and to "voluntarily
assembl[e] with any society, group, or assemblage of persons formed to teach or
advocate the doctrines of criminal syndicalism" (Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §
2923.13). A Ku Klux Klan leader was found guilty under the statute after
footage of him presiding over a KKK gathering was shown in the media.
"Therefore, we are faced with a statute that, by its own language and as applied,
purports to punish mere advocacy and to forbid, on pain of criminal
punishment, assembly with others merely to advocate the described type of
action," the US Supreme Court ruled [Footnote 4]. A law like that is prohibited
by the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
An Illustration of a Statute Void for Vagueness
A law that makes "inappropriate attire on public beaches" illegal is passed by
the state legislature. Because Larry, a law enforcement officer, believes that
women should only wear one-piece bathing suits, he arrests Kathy for wearing
two. Two days later, Sarah is arrested by Burt, another police officer, for
wearing a one-piece bathing suit at the beach. Burt believes that women should
not be seen in bathing suits in public. Sarah and Kathy may challenge the statute
on its face and argue that it is ambiguous. The definition of "inappropriate" is
ambiguous and can vary from person to person. As a result, it gives law
enforcement excessive discretion, is applied unevenly, and fails to adequately
inform Kathy, Sarah, and the general public of what conduct is illegal.
An Illustration of an Unconstitutional Riot Incitement Statute
In order to accomplish industrial or political reform, Ohio passed a law that
made it illegal to "advocate[ing]...the duty, necessity, or propriety of crime,
sabotage, violence, or unlawful methods of terrorism" and to "voluntarily
assembl[e] with any society, group, or assemblage of persons formed to teach or
advocate the doctrines of criminal syndicalism" (Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §
2923.13). A Ku Klux Klan leader was found guilty under the statute after
footage of him presiding over a KKK gathering was shown in the media.
"Therefore, we are faced with a statute that, by its own language and as applied,
purports to punish mere advocacy and to forbid, on pain of criminal
punishment, assembly with others merely to advocate the described type of
action," the US Supreme Court ruled [Footnote 4]. A law like that is prohibited
by the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
An Illustration of a Statute Void for Vagueness
A law that makes "inappropriate attire on public beaches" illegal is passed by
the state legislature. Because Larry, a law enforcement officer, believes that
women should only wear one-piece bathing suits, he arrests Kathy for wearing
two. Two days later, Sarah is arrested by Burt, another police officer, for
wearing a one-piece bathing suit at the beach. Burt believes that women should
not be seen in bathing suits in public. Sarah and Kathy may challenge the statute
on its face and argue that it is ambiguous. The definition of "inappropriate" is
ambiguous and can vary from person to person. As a result, it gives law
enforcement excessive discretion, is applied unevenly, and fails to adequately
inform Kathy, Sarah, and the general public of what conduct is illegal.
An Illustration of an Unconstitutional Riot Incitement Statute
In order to accomplish industrial or political reform, Ohio passed a law that
made it illegal to "advocate[ing]...the duty, necessity, or propriety of crime,
sabotage, violence, or unlawful methods of terrorism" and to "voluntarily
assembl[e] with any society, group, or assemblage of persons formed to teach or
advocate the doctrines of criminal syndicalism" (Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §
2923.13). A Ku Klux Klan leader was found guilty under the statute after
footage of him presiding over a KKK gathering was shown in the media.
"Therefore, we are faced with a statute that, by its own language and as applied,
purports to punish mere advocacy and to forbid, on pain of criminal
punishment, assembly with others merely to advocate the described type of
action," the US Supreme Court ruled [Footnote 4]. A law like that is prohibited
by the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
An Illustration of a Statute Void for Vagueness
A law that makes "inappropriate attire on public beaches" illegal is passed by
the state legislature. Because Larry, a law enforcement officer, believes that
women should only wear one-piece bathing suits, he arrests Kathy for wearing
two. Two days later, Sarah is arrested by Burt, another police officer, for
wearing a one-piece bathing suit at the beach. Burt believes that women should
not be seen in bathing suits in public. Sarah and Kathy may challenge the statute
on its face and argue that it is ambiguous. The definition of "inappropriate" is
ambiguous and can vary from person to person. As a result, it gives law
enforcement excessive discretion, is applied unevenly, and fails to adequately
inform Kathy, Sarah, and the general public of what conduct is illegal.
An Illustration of an Unconstitutional Riot Incitement Statute
In order to accomplish industrial or political reform, Ohio passed a law that
made it illegal to "advocate[ing]...the duty, necessity, or propriety of crime,
sabotage, violence, or unlawful methods of terrorism" and to "voluntarily
assembl[e] with any society, group, or assemblage of persons formed to teach or
advocate the doctrines of criminal syndicalism" (Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §
2923.13). A Ku Klux Klan leader was found guilty under the statute after
footage of him presiding over a KKK gathering was shown in the media.
"Therefore, we are faced with a statute that, by its own language and as applied,
purports to punish mere advocacy and to forbid, on pain of criminal
punishment, assembly with others merely to advocate the described type of
action," the US Supreme Court ruled [Footnote 4]. A law like that is prohibited
by the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
An Illustration of a Statute Void for Vagueness
A law that makes "inappropriate attire on public beaches" illegal is passed by
the state legislature. Because Larry, a law enforcement officer, believes that
women should only wear one-piece bathing suits, he arrests Kathy for wearing
two. Two days later, Sarah is arrested by Burt, another police officer, for
wearing a one-piece bathing suit at the beach. Burt believes that women should
not be seen in bathing suits in public. Sarah and Kathy may challenge the statute
on its face and argue that it is ambiguous. The definition of "inappropriate" is
ambiguous and can vary from person to person. As a result, it gives law
enforcement excessive discretion, is applied unevenly, and fails to adequately
inform Kathy, Sarah, and the general public of what conduct is illegal.
An Illustration of an Unconstitutional Riot Incitement Statute
In order to accomplish industrial or political reform, Ohio passed a law that
made it illegal to "advocate[ing]...the duty, necessity, or propriety of crime,
sabotage, violence, or unlawful methods of terrorism" and to "voluntarily
assembl[e] with any society, group, or assemblage of persons formed to teach or
advocate the doctrines of criminal syndicalism" (Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §
2923.13). A Ku Klux Klan leader was found guilty under the statute after
footage of him presiding over a KKK gathering was shown in the media.
"Therefore, we are faced with a statute that, by its own language and as applied,
purports to punish mere advocacy and to forbid, on pain of criminal
punishment, assembly with others merely to advocate the described type of
action," the US Supreme Court ruled [Footnote 4]. A law like that is prohibited
by the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
An Illustration of a Statute Void for Vagueness
A law that makes "inappropriate attire on public beaches" illegal is passed by
the state legislature. Because Larry, a law enforcement officer, believes that
women should only wear one-piece bathing suits, he arrests Kathy for wearing
two. Two days later, Sarah is arrested by Burt, another police officer, for
wearing a one-piece bathing suit at the beach. Burt believes that women should
not be seen in bathing suits in public. Sarah and Kathy may challenge the statute
on its face and argue that it is ambiguous. The definition of "inappropriate" is
ambiguous and can vary from person to person. As a result, it gives law
enforcement excessive discretion, is applied unevenly, and fails to adequately
inform Kathy, Sarah, and the general public of what conduct is illegal.
An Illustration of an Unconstitutional Riot Incitement Statute
In order to accomplish industrial or political reform, Ohio passed a law that
made it illegal to "advocate[ing]...the duty, necessity, or propriety of crime,
sabotage, violence, or unlawful methods of terrorism" and to "voluntarily
assembl[e] with any society, group, or assemblage of persons formed to teach or
advocate the doctrines of criminal syndicalism" (Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §
2923.13). A Ku Klux Klan leader was found guilty under the statute after
footage of him presiding over a KKK gathering was shown in the media.
"Therefore, we are faced with a statute that, by its own language and as applied,
purports to punish mere advocacy and to forbid, on pain of criminal
punishment, assembly with others merely to advocate the described type of
action," the US Supreme Court ruled [Footnote 4]. A law like that is prohibited
by the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
An Illustration of a Statute Void for Vagueness
A law that makes "inappropriate attire on public beaches" illegal is passed by
the state legislature. Because Larry, a law enforcement officer, believes that
women should only wear one-piece bathing suits, he arrests Kathy for wearing
two. Two days later, Sarah is arrested by Burt, another police officer, for
wearing a one-piece bathing suit at the beach. Burt believes that women should
not be seen in bathing suits in public. Sarah and Kathy may challenge the statute
on its face and argue that it is ambiguous. The definition of "inappropriate" is
ambiguous and can vary from person to person. As a result, it gives law
enforcement excessive discretion, is applied unevenly, and fails to adequately
inform Kathy, Sarah, and the general public of what conduct is illegal.
An Illustration of an Unconstitutional Riot Incitement Statute
In order to accomplish industrial or political reform, Ohio passed a law that
made it illegal to "advocate[ing]...the duty, necessity, or propriety of crime,
sabotage, violence, or unlawful methods of terrorism" and to "voluntarily
assembl[e] with any society, group, or assemblage of persons formed to teach or
advocate the doctrines of criminal syndicalism" (Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §
2923.13). A Ku Klux Klan leader was found guilty under the statute after
footage of him presiding over a KKK gathering was shown in the media.
"Therefore, we are faced with a statute that, by its own language and as applied,
purports to punish mere advocacy and to forbid, on pain of criminal
punishment, assembly with others merely to advocate the described type of
action," the US Supreme Court ruled [Footnote 4]. A law like that is prohibited
by the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
An Illustration of a Statute Void for Vagueness
A law that makes "inappropriate attire on public beaches" illegal is passed by
the state legislature. Because Larry, a law enforcement officer, believes that
women should only wear one-piece bathing suits, he arrests Kathy for wearing
two. Two days later, Sarah is arrested by Burt, another police officer, for
wearing a one-piece bathing suit at the beach. Burt believes that women should
not be seen in bathing suits in public. Sarah and Kathy may challenge the statute
on its face and argue that it is ambiguous. The definition of "inappropriate" is
ambiguous and can vary from person to person. As a result, it gives law
enforcement excessive discretion, is applied unevenly, and fails to adequately
inform Kathy, Sarah, and the general public of what conduct is illegal.
An Illustration of an Unconstitutional Riot Incitement Statute
In order to accomplish industrial or political reform, Ohio passed a law that
made it illegal to "advocate[ing]...the duty, necessity, or propriety of crime,
sabotage, violence, or unlawful methods of terrorism" and to "voluntarily
assembl[e] with any society, group, or assemblage of persons formed to teach or
advocate the doctrines of criminal syndicalism" (Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §
2923.13). A Ku Klux Klan leader was found guilty under the statute after
footage of him presiding over a KKK gathering was shown in the media.
"Therefore, we are faced with a statute that, by its own language and as applied,
purports to punish mere advocacy and to forbid, on pain of criminal
punishment, assembly with others merely to advocate the described type of
action," the US Supreme Court ruled [Footnote 4]. A law like that is prohibited
by the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
An Illustration of a Statute Void for Vagueness
A law that makes "inappropriate attire on public beaches" illegal is passed by
the state legislature. Because Larry, a law enforcement officer, believes that
women should only wear one-piece bathing suits, he arrests Kathy for wearing
two. Two days later, Sarah is arrested by Burt, another police officer, for
wearing a one-piece bathing suit at the beach. Burt believes that women should
not be seen in bathing suits in public. Sarah and Kathy may challenge the statute
on its face and argue that it is ambiguous. The definition of "inappropriate" is
ambiguous and can vary from person to person. As a result, it gives law
enforcement excessive discretion, is applied unevenly, and fails to adequately
inform Kathy, Sarah, and the general public of what conduct is illegal.
An Illustration of an Unconstitutional Riot Incitement Statute
In order to accomplish industrial or political reform, Ohio passed a law that
made it illegal to "advocate[ing]...the duty, necessity, or propriety of crime,
sabotage, violence, or unlawful methods of terrorism" and to "voluntarily
assembl[e] with any society, group, or assemblage of persons formed to teach or
advocate the doctrines of criminal syndicalism" (Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §
2923.13). A Ku Klux Klan leader was found guilty under the statute after
footage of him presiding over a KKK gathering was shown in the media.
"Therefore, we are faced with a statute that, by its own language and as applied,
purports to punish mere advocacy and to forbid, on pain of criminal
punishment, assembly with others merely to advocate the described type of
action," the US Supreme Court ruled [Footnote 4]. A law like that is prohibited
by the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
