Ronan is the leader of a religious cult in Gotham City. He holds a weekly “service” in the public park and, during his sermon, uses insulting expletives directed at persons in his audience who are not members of the cult. The audience has become boisterous and several times fights have almost broken out between members of the audience and members of the cult. After a particularly boisterous rally, the attorney for the city of Gotham obtained an ex parte injunction prohibiting Ronan from conducting any further rallies “which tend to disturb or annoy the average member of the community.” If challenged on appeal, a judge would find the injunction:
A. Valid, because the threats of imminent violence justify the injunction.
B. Invalid, because the injunction is overly broad and vague.
C. Invalid, because the injunction was obtained in a manner which violates procedural due process.
D. Invalid for the reasons set forth in B & C.
{ 16 comments… read them below or add one }
DANG!
Answer D is correct. The injunction is overly broad and vague because it fails to sufficiently define what acts are prohibited. Likewise, the speaker was entitled to a hearing prior to the issuance of the injunction because the injunction severely limited his freedom and there was no emergency justifying the ex parte proceeding.
Answer A is incorrect. There is no threat of imminent violence here, because this is a prior restraint of future rallies. Free speech cannot be limited on the basis of future, speculative violence.
Answer B is incorrect. While the injunction is overly broad and vague because it fails to sufficiently define what acts are prohibited, C is also a true statement and, therefore, D is the correct answer.
Answer C is incorrect. The speaker was entitled to a hearing prior to the issuance of the injunction because the injunction severely limited his freedom and there was no emergency justifying the ex parte proceeding. However, because B is also a true statement, D is the correct answer.
B. a TRO can be obtained ex parte, so C is incorrect. However, the injunction is very vague and broad (doctrines that apply statues or govt policy) but would apply here.
D, what is due here is liberty, essential to that idea of liberty is the freedom of speech. The exparte motion by the AG does not involve notice but is neither broad nor vague, since it says clearly —- Ronan from conducting further services.
Broad refers to the class recipients of the law and vague refers to terms in the legislation. But in this case would apply to the prior restriant levied on Ronan.
On further research, this is a prior restraint and there is no deprivation of life liberty and property. So B. Sorry for triple posting.
D. One can be prevented from speaking if it may lead to the break out of imminent violence creating a threat to law and order disturbing the peace. The test applied by the SC in cases where the restrictions to the right of free speech are involved is strict scrutiny where the state has to show state action that is narrowly tailored to achieve a specific state interest. Here, the injunction only states general prohibitions such as disturb or annoy and not any specific prohibitions such as ‘may not insult, make derogatory comments etc.’. The general prohibitions would therefore make the injunction overly broad and it would fail the strict scrutiny test. Procedural Due process requires that a person be given the right to a fair hearing before rights guaranteed to him are taken away. Here, the injunction granted against Ronan taking away his fundamental right to free speech was given without proper notice and the right to a fair hearing. Therefore, it violates procedural due process.
D. While one can be prevented from speaking if it may lead to the break out of imminent violence creating a threat to law and order disturbing the peace. The test applied by the SC is strict scrutiny where the state has to show action that is narrowly tailored to achieve a specific state interest. Here, the injunction granted is overly broad. It only states general prohibitions such as disturb or annoy and not any specific prohibitions. This would make the injunction overly broad. Procedural Due process also requires that a person be given the right to a fair hearing before rights guaranteed to him are taken away. Here, the injunction granted against Ronan taking away his fundamental right to free speech was given without proper notice and the right to a fair hearing. Therefore, it violates procedural due process.
D for differ
B
answer b
I mean RK
BV – I think you are right bc this is a prior restraint issue which calls for a compelling state interest test and Ronan’s right to an immediate appeal. Ronan has no life, liberty, or property interest in using boisterous language that causes fights – its unprotected speech and therefore has no ‘right’ to it. If Ronan wants to attack, he does this on the ground of facial attacks on a prior restraint. No hearing required.
B
B – facial attacks!
B is best.
B is the best answer. This injunction is invalid because it is overly broad and vague. I do not think that the injunction was obtained in a manner which violates procedural due process. Procedural due process requires when a person has a right to life, liberty and property, they are afforded notice and a hearing. Here, I do not think he was afforded a hearing because this is not a stake (i.e. a permanent job, eminent domain suit, etc.). Therefore, I think that B is the only correct answer.