This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
TheArbitrator · 36-40, M
What part of it exactly do you think is unconstitutional ?
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment
TheArbitrator · 36-40, M
@Kingfish1 Congress passed the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) of 1970 in an attempt to combat organized crime. The application and use of the law has raised important First Amendment issues implicating the right to freedom of association.
[b]
Supreme Court said RICO forfeiture laws used in obscenity case did not violate First Amendment[/b]
In Alexander v. United States (1993), the Court ruled that RICO forfeiture laws did not violate the First Amendment.
At issue was an individual convicted of RICO and federal obscenity laws. Because the owner’s conviction for the sale of several obscene products was deemed a pattern of predicate activity, he was ordered to forfeit his businesses and nearly $9 million obtained as a result of racketeering activity.
Claiming that the forfeiture trampled on his First Amendment expressive rights, the owner appealed to the Supreme Court, which ruled that because the forfeitures did not constitute a form of prior restraint of speech, they did not violate the First Amendment.
RICO laws continue to be used expansively to combat organized crime. Although the act can be used against protesters, courts and prosecutors are less likely to use it for that purpose than they have in the past.
[b]
Supreme Court said RICO forfeiture laws used in obscenity case did not violate First Amendment[/b]
In Alexander v. United States (1993), the Court ruled that RICO forfeiture laws did not violate the First Amendment.
At issue was an individual convicted of RICO and federal obscenity laws. Because the owner’s conviction for the sale of several obscene products was deemed a pattern of predicate activity, he was ordered to forfeit his businesses and nearly $9 million obtained as a result of racketeering activity.
Claiming that the forfeiture trampled on his First Amendment expressive rights, the owner appealed to the Supreme Court, which ruled that because the forfeitures did not constitute a form of prior restraint of speech, they did not violate the First Amendment.
RICO laws continue to be used expansively to combat organized crime. Although the act can be used against protesters, courts and prosecutors are less likely to use it for that purpose than they have in the past.
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment
TheArbitrator · 36-40, M
@Kingfish1 No, it's not unconstitutional. The Supreme ruled in Alexander v. United States (1993) that RICO forfeiture laws did not violate the First Amendment.