Essay On Overbreadth Amendment

Overbreadth Doctrine and the First Amendment
There are many individuals and groups alike that choose to express their disdain for certain actions, laws, and behaviors through the use of Freedom of Speech. The First Amendment has been cited by many protesters when demonstrating that it is their right to Freedom of expression. Freedom of Expression is powerful enough that sometimes words do not have to be spoken for a message to be conveyed. However, not all acts are protected by the First Amendment. For example, burning the flag is protected under the First Amendment but promoting the benefits of marijuana at a school event would be protected (U.S. Courts, n.d). If by chance there is a question of constitutionality regarding the First Amendment, it is usually linked to the overbreadth doctrine. Simply meaning, an individual may feel that their rights and/or others rights to Freedom of Speech may be prohibited by laws when applied under the context in which they were written. Broadrick v. Oklahoma, 413 U.S. 601 (1973) is the most quoted case that addresses issues of the overbreadth doctrine as it pertains to the First Amendment.
State v. Lilburn
In March of 1990, three (3) hunters assembled with permission from the
Department of Fish, Wildlife, and Parks (DFWP) to hunt bison that had wandered from Yellowstone National Park (Brody & Acker, 2010). During this time there were eleven (11) demonstrators attempting to interfere and herd the bison back to the safety of Yellowstone National Park. DFWP informed the hunters that they may encounter the demonstrators while attempting to hunt and they should be careful. Given the fact that the demonstrators had been warned that the hunt was, in fact, legal and to stop interfering, the warning did nothing to deter the group from interfering especially John Lilburn. Lilburn, a demonstrator, on more than one occasion, placed himself in scopes range of Hal Slemmer’s rifle to hinder the hunt of the migrating bison. Luckily the actual day of the hunt none of the demonstrators were arrested nor were they injured. However, Lilburn was subsequently arrested and charged with the misdemeanor offense of harassment. It was alleged in the complaint filed with the Gallatin County Justice Court, that Lilburn disturbed a hunter with the intention of deterring the killing of a bison by using his body as a shield. As a result of a jury trial, Lilburn was convicted of harassment. Of course, Lilburn chose to appeal his conviction to the District Court citing that the harassment statute was unconstitutionally vague and overbroad (Brody & Acker, 2010, p 39). The statues under Montana’s Hunter Harassment Law consisted of prohibitions of harassment, .no personal interference when taking a wild animal and no person may disturb an individual engaged in the lawful taking of a wild animal with intent to dissuade the individual or prevent the taking of the animal (Brody & Acker, 2010, p 39).
Lilburn did not prevail in his claim that Montana’s Hunter Harassment Law was overly broad because there was no realistic danger that the statute itself would compromise protections acknowledged under the First Amendment Member of the City Council v.
Taxpayers for Vincent (Brody & Acker, 2010, p. 40). Lilburn challenged that the legislature use of the word dissuades made the statue more or less content based regulation. However, the Court made it very clear that the harassment laws and other legislative history were not created to silence the views of the demonstrators that disagree with bison hunting. Therefore, it was found that there was no overbreadth that existed and if any were to be found, and then it is to be resolved on a case-by-case
inquiry.