Blount v. Rizzi

5 Citing briefs

  1. Free Speech Coalition, Inc. et al v. the Honorable Eric H. Holder, Jr.

    MOTION to Alter Judgment or Amend Pursuant to Rule 59

    Filed August 24, 2010

    The Government asserts here that – like many lines Case 2:09-cv-04607-MMB Document 71 Filed 08/24/10 Page 16 of 29 10 dividing protected from unprotected expression – the line defining child pornography is in some ways “dim and uncertain.” Cf. Blount v. Rizzi, 400 U.S. 410, 416 (1971)(“Government is not free to adopt whatever procedures it pleases” in censoring obscenity from mail (internal quotation marks omitted)); see also Speiser v. Randall, 357 U.S. 513, 521-22 (1958)(tax exemption scheme which placed burden on taxpayer to disprove unlawful political advocacy imposed unconstitutional burden on speech). Congress might respond to this concern by altogether eliminating the depiction of actual minors as an element of the offense of child pornography.

  2. Keim v. ADF Midatlantic, LLC et al

    MOTION TO DISMISS 1 Complaint, FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM for which relief can be granted, with incorporated memorandum of law

    Filed July 27, 2012

    Plaintiff’s claims essentially ask this Court to judicially expand the TCPA to capture conduct which is beyond its scope and intent. See, e.g., Blount v. Rizzi, 400 U.S. 410, 419 (1971) (“[I]t is for Congress, not this Court, to rewrite the statute.”); Friends of Everglades v. South Fla. Water Mgmt.

  3. Prison Legal News v. Columbia County et al

    Motion to Appear as Amicus Curiae .

    Filed March 6, 2012

    III. ARGUMENT A. The Postcard-Only Mail Policies Violate the First Amendment Rights of Prisoners EXHIBIT A Page 4 of 13 Case 3:12-cv-00071-SI Document 41 Filed 03/06/12 Page 7 of 16 Page ID#: 1313 Page 5 AMICUS BRIEF OF PARTNERSHIP FOR SAFETY AND JUSTICE IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION LYNN S. WALSH 209 S.W. Oak St., #400 Portland, OR 97204 503-790-2772 503-227-6840 (fax) and All who Correspond with Prisoners. The right to receive and send mail is unquestionably protected by the First Amendment. Blount v. Rizzi, 400 U.S. 410 (1971). The law is also clear that jail prisoners generally retain the First Amendment right to send and receive mail.

  4. Lederman v. USA, et al

    Memorandum in opposition to re MOTION for Reconsideration re Memorandum & Opinion of April 13, 2007, Denying in Part Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint MOTION for Reconsideration re Memorandum & Opinion of April 13, 2007, Denying in Part Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint

    Filed May 11, 2007

    See, e.g., Marcus v. Search Warrant, 367 U.S. 717 (1961). Cf. Blount v. Rizzi, 400 U.S. 410, 420B21 (1971) (applying a similar rule to orders banning materials from the mail). 34.

  5. Schumacher et al v. City of Portland et al

    Memorandum in Opposition to MotionMotion for Preliminary Injunction 3 .

    Filed May 11, 2007

    2 This language appears in Justice Holmes’ dissent in Burleson, but the U.S. Supreme Court has since adopted his opinion. See Blount v. Rizzi, 400 U.S. 410, 416, 91 S. Ct. 423, 27 L. Ed. 2d 498 (1971). Case 3:07-cv-00601-MO Document 25 Filed 05/11/07 Page 12 of 15 708473.0001/626545.