(a) Public official: all elected officials and those running for office and government employees with substantial responsibility
(1) Public official: Plaintiff who is a public official performing his or her official duties can only recover for defamation if they prove 1) statement is false 2) that the statement was made with actual malice We prohibit true threats to stop people from signaling impending violence, giving people tremendous fear, altering their life. Virginia may choose to regulate cross-burning as sign of impending violence O Relied on the virulence exception and said it falls within virulence exceptionĬross-burning is a particularly virulent form of intimidation.
Concede there is a content based distinction so falls within context of RAV. There's a problem under RAV since it's a content based distinction within an unprotected class but it's not unconstitutional because falls under exceptions. Majority: Law is overbroad and there's no RAV problem. Any person who shall violate any provision of this section shall be guilty of a Class 6 felony Statute: It shall be unlawful for any person or persons, with the intent of intimidating any person or group of persons, to burn, or cause to be burned, a cross on the property of another, a highway or other public place. Contained a prima facie element which said any such burning of a cross shall be prima facie evidence of an intent to intimidate a person or group of persons (burning cross provides prima facie evidence that you intended to intimidate) It banned cross-burning if you did it with intention to create fear in a group. There was a no cross-burning statute in Virginia: criminalized cross-burning (particular form of threat). change the age, add a consent defense, etc.) O You would need legislative changes (i.e. If you have a 15 year old sending out nude pictures, you're distributing child pornography and if you receive the photo, you're guilty of receiving child pornography. Instead, it used the harm to the children/ permanent record reasoning and so simulated child sex is OKAY because the harms don't exist! 
If we accepted the harm that child pornography leads to pedophilia, then we would ban this. O Harms are crucial in answering this issue. O However, you can't take someone's picture from facebook and put it on a simulated screen - harms are present here so you can punish the act!! O Can't punish computer generated images of children Facts: law punished using actual children and using morphed images and computer generated images of child pornography.
0 kommentar(er)
