The headline: 'Encouraging' illegal immigration is not protected as free speech, Supreme Court rules The link: 'Encouraging' illegal immigration is not protected as free speech, Supreme Court rules (yahoo.com) The lede: The Supreme Court on Friday rejected a free-speech challenge to a long-standing immigration law that makes it a crime to "encourage or induce" a noncitizen to illegally enter or reside in this country. By a 7-2 vote, the justices upheld criminal charges against a Sacramento-area man who charged nearly 500 immigrants who lacked documentation up to $10,000 on the phony promise that he could help them become U.S. citizens. The comment: One 'take away' is that laws can be made that carve out certain types of speech from the freedom of speech amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America. We can now add encouraging illegal immigration to libel and slander. And this by a 'conservative' Supreme Court of the United States of America. This can't be pinned on those commie socialist Marxist Democrat liberals. Regards, stay safe 'n well . . . 'n watch what you say.
this: Elk Grove Man Sentenced to 20 Years in Prison for $1M Adult Adoption Immigration Fraud Scheme is not freedom of speech, its a crime. Helaman Hansen, 65, of Elk Grove, was sentenced today to 20 years in prison by U.S. District Judge Morrison C. England Jr. for operating an elaborate adult-adoption fraud scheme that targeted undocumented aliens, U.S. Attorney Phillip A. Talbert announced. Judge England also ordered Hansen to pay $576,264 in restitution. On May 9, 2017, after an 11-day trial, a federal jury found Hansen guilty of 12 counts of mail fraud, three counts of wire fraud, and two counts of encouraging and inducing illegal immigration for private financial gain. U.S. Attorney Talbert stated: “The sentence today acknowledges the vast number of people victimized by the defendant. He preyed upon hundreds of people who wanted to find a pathway to American citizenship and exploited their hopes and dreams for his own financial gain. The defendant’s lies and false promises caused many to part with substantial amounts of money, and in some instances, a lifetime’s worth of savings. you cant commit several crimes and try to get off by claiming freedom of speech.
Do you have the actual case? This is a reporters interpretation of the case. Without the actual case to see precisely how its worded its impossible to know if the "encouraging" part of speech being infringed upon is true or false.
Then we dont have enough information to agree with you. We do know that several crimes were committed in that process that have nothing to do with freedom of speech.
From your description, what the man was involved in, was criminal fraud. I do not see how calling a crime of misrepresentation, unprotected speech, is a real "limitation," on free speech. By that rationale, it would seem that truth in labelling requirements, are also restrictions on free speech-- are you also against these? (Or how about the idea that lawyer - client privilege is waived, when the talk is about something criminal?) Perhaps you could give an example of how a person not committing some (other) crime, could have his free speech restricted or criminalized, because of this ruling. Can it now be made illegal, for instance, to say that illegal immigrants should come to one's sanctuary city?
