{"id":2043,"date":"2012-04-20T11:00:50","date_gmt":"2012-04-20T15:00:50","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.peoplevstate.com\/?p=2043"},"modified":"2012-04-20T11:47:22","modified_gmt":"2012-04-20T15:47:22","slug":"interesting-footnote-to-the-heicklen-dismissal","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.peoplevstate.com\/?p=2043","title":{"rendered":"Interesting Footnote to the Heicklen Dismissal"},"content":{"rendered":"
Judge Kimba Wood wrote in footnote 23 of her Opinion and Order:<\/p>\n
The Government\u2019s argument suggests that if Heicklen\u2019s speech were found to be protected by the First
\nAmendment, that speech must still give way because of the danger that jurors who receive a pamphlet like
\nHeicklen\u2019s will disregard a judge\u2019s instructions to render a verdict according to the evidence introduced before them
\nand the law as presented by the court. The Court notes that our judicial system rests, in part, on the belief that jurors every day follow much more difficult instructions, for instance, instructions to disregard eyewitness testimony that
\nthey just heard and ignore evidence that they just saw. It is just as reasonable to trust that jurors will follow a
\njudge\u2019s instruction to accept the law as explained by the judge and disregard the contents of a pamphlet handed to
\nthem by a leafletter outside the courthouse. The essence of the First Amendment is that falsehood and fallacies are
\nexposed more effectively through discussion than through suppression, and that public debate affords adequate
\nprotection against the dissemination of \u201cnoxious doctrine.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\nWhich is the “noxious doctrine,” the falsehood and fallacy that will be more effectively exposed and protected against through discussion and public debate: The doctrine that jurors have no right to do wrong? Or the doctrine that they must follow the judge’s instructions, even if the judge instructs them to do wrong?<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Judge Kimba Wood wrote in footnote 23 of her Opinion and Order: The Government\u2019s argument suggests that if Heicklen\u2019s speech were found to be protected by the First Amendment, that speech must still give way because of the danger that jurors who receive a pamphlet like Heicklen\u2019s will disregard a judge\u2019s instructions to render a […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-2043","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized"],"aioseo_notices":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.peoplevstate.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2043","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.peoplevstate.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.peoplevstate.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.peoplevstate.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.peoplevstate.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=2043"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/www.peoplevstate.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2043\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":2045,"href":"https:\/\/www.peoplevstate.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2043\/revisions\/2045"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.peoplevstate.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=2043"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.peoplevstate.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=2043"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.peoplevstate.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=2043"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}