Kelley Lynch
<kelley.lynch.2010@gmail.com> | Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 12:20 PM
| | To: "Francisco.A.Suarez" <Francisco.A.Suarez@verizon.net>, Dennis <Dennis@riordan-horgan.com>, "*irs. commissioner" <*IRS.Commissioner@irs.gov>, Washington Field <washington.field@ic.fbi.gov>, "Kelly.Sopko" <Kelly.Sopko@tigta.treas.gov>, ASKDOJ <ASKDOJ@usdoj.gov>, "Doug.Davis" <Doug.Davis@ftb.ca.gov>, rbyucaipa <rbyucaipa@yahoo.com>, Robert MacMillan <robert.macmillan@gmail.com>, moseszzz <moseszzz@mztv.com>, a <anderson.cooper@cnn.com>, wennermedia <wennermedia@gmail.com>, "Hoffman, Rand" <rand.hoffman@umusic.com>, woodwardb <woodwardb@washpost.com>, "harriet.ryan" <harriet.ryan@latimes.com>, "hailey.branson" <hailey.branson@latimes.com>, "glenn.greenwald" <glenn.greenwald@guardiannews.com>, lrohter <lrohter@nytimes.com>
| |
|
Francisco,
I absolutely want to challenge this on appeal. Who knows what "annoy"
means. It is far too broad, can be randomly interpretted, and - more
to the point - can be used abusively to target people.
The Supreme Court attempted to define obscenity in Miller v.
California, 413 U.S. 15, 24 (1973), by establishing a three-part test
for obscenity: "hard core" sexual material that appeals to the
prurient interest; is patently offensive under community standards;
and lacks serious literary or other value. My alleged emails - and
potentially offensive language (utterly acceptable in this culture in
many respects - although my mother agrees - I would not want 85 year
old women on the jury because times have changed) - do not meet the
three-part test for obscenity. They are not "hard core" sexual
material; they are not patently offensive under community standards
(and particularly not in Los Angeles); and they do not lack other
value. I was frustrated and I cursed. Period.
Each of the three parts of the Miller test must be met to criminalize
even obscene speech. The question then is this - I didn't meet the
three parts of the Miller test so why was my speech criminalized?
Please give this some thought and it most definitely should be
addressed in the appeal brief.
All the best,
Kelley
|
|
