WASHINGTON — In a broad defense of the right to free speech, the Supreme Court on Tuesday unanimously struck down the so-called "Son of Sam" laws that allow crime victims to collect a criminal's profits from books or movies.
Even though these laws have the laudable purpose of aiding those who suffer at the hands of a criminal, the First Amendment does not "permit the government to discriminate on the basis of the content of the message," the high court said.
State officials and crime victims can go after the funds of criminals, the justices said, either through civil suits or through sentencing laws that seize all the assets of a convict. But the government cannot enforce a law aimed solely at obtaining money derived from publications, movies, plays or other "expressive activity," the court said.
The ruling appears to invalidate laws in New York, California and 38 other states that were designed to prevent a notorious criminal from making a profit from his crime.
Like the flag-burning ruling of 1989, Tuesday's decision shows again that the Supreme Court, while generally conservative, is still willing to give broad protection to the freedom of speech.
Under Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, the court rarely strikes down state laws because they are said to violate the U.S. Constitution. But cases involving the First Amendment's protection of free speech have been the exception to that rule.
"On the core issues of the First Amendment, this court is very solid," said New York attorney Charles S. Sims, who represented Simon & Schuster, the publishing firm that challenged the New York law.
In the summer of 1977, a series of random shootings by a killer who dubbed himself the "Son of Sam" terrorized New York City. State lawmakers feared that the murderer, once captured, could earn millions of dollars by telling his story to magazines and book publishers.
The New York law required a publisher, movie maker or any other firm which contracted with "any person accused or convicted of crime" regarding "reenactment of such crime" to present the contract to a state crime victims' board. It was empowered to seize all proceeds from the contract and hold them for five years. Both the victims and the criminal's lawyers could seek the proceeds.
