First Amendment topicsAbout the First Amendment
Case Summary for Simon & Schuster v. New York Crime Victims Board
Date Decided: December 10, 1991
Issue: Freedom of Speech -- Whether a New York statute that required that an accused or convicted criminal's income from speech describing his crime be deposited in an escrow account for possible distribution to the criminal's victims or other creditors violated the First Amendment.
Vote: Yes, 8-0
Facts: In 1977, New York passed legislation commonly known as the "Son of Sam" law, which required any entity contracting with an accused or convicted criminal for the production of a work describing the crime to turn over to the state's Crime Victims Board any income earned under that contract. The Board then made payments from that fund for legal and literary representation, compensation to victims, and payments to other creditors. In 1986, the Board became aware of a contract between publisher Simon & Schuster and organized crime figure Henry Hill for a book entitled Wiseguy. After the Board sought to enforce the Son of Sam law against Simon & Schuster, the publisher brought suit seeking a ruling that the legislation violated the First Amendment. The trial court and Second Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the statute.
Legal Principles at Issue: A statute is presumed to violate the First Amendment if it imposes a financial burden on speakers because of the content of their speech. Leathers v. Medlock, 499 U.S. 439 (1991). Such a statute can be upheld only if it is necessary to serve a compelling state interest and is narrowly tailored to achieve that interest. Arkansas Writers' Project, Inc. v. Ragland, 481 U.S. 221 (1987).
Legal Basis for Decision: While the Court agreed that New York has a compelling interest in compensating victims from the fruits of the crime, it held that the statute was unconstitutionally overbroad because it applied to speech that only mentioned a crime, regardless of how incidental the crime was to the primary subject of the speech. The Court pointed to a number of books, including The Autobiography of Malcolm X and Thoreau's Civil Disobedience, that would have been snared by the Son of Sam legislation had it existed when those books were published. In the Court's view, these books demonstrated that the statute's reach was unconstitutionally overbroad because it applied to a wide range of literature from authors who did not need to compensate their "victims."
This Case is Important Because: The federal government and many states have enacted legislation similar to the Son of Sam statute. The Court made it clear, however, that it was not ruling upon the constitutionality of these laws.
Quotable: "A list of prominent figures whose autobiographies would be subject to the statute is not difficult to construct: The list could include Sir Walter Raleigh, who was convicted of treason after a dubiously conducted 1603 trial; Jesse Jackson, who was arrested in 1963 for trespass and resisting arrest after attempting to be served at a lunch counter in North Carolina; and Bertrand Russell, who was jailed for seven days at the age of 89 for participating in a sit-down protest against nuclear weapons."
Writing for the Majority: Justice O'Connor
Voting with the Majority: Chief Justice Rehnquist, Justices White, Stevens, Scalia, and Souter (Justice Blackmun, concurring in judgment) (Justice Kennedy, concurring in judgment)
Writing for the Dissent: N/A
Voting with the Dissent: N/A
Not Voting: Justice Thomas
About this site
About the First Amendment
About the First Amendment Center
How to contribute
First Amendment programs
State of the First Amendment

Religious liberty in public schools
First Reports
Supreme Court
First Amendment publications
First Amendment Center history
Freedom Singsā„¢
First Amendment

Congressional Research Service reports
Guest editorials
FOI material
The First Amendment

Lesson plans
Contact us
Privacy statement
Related links