Tulsa Criminal Defense Attorney | Free Speech

This content was written for Cale Law office

If you’ve been charged with a crime, hire an attorney who will give you aggressive legal representation. Call the Cale law office to schedule your free initial consultation at 918-277-4800. Tulsa criminal defense attorney Stephen Cale has nearly two decades of experience fighting for his clients.

The defendant contended on appeal that the statute concerning soliciting sexual conduct with a minor by use of technology was unconstitutional as applied to him. He asserted that the statutory provision violates the free speech clause of the first and 14^th amendments to the U.S. Constitution. The party attacked the constitutionality of a statute has the burden of proving the statute is unconstitutional.

The defendant contended that there is no compelling state interest that justifies the content-based restriction on speech set forth in the statute. As a general matter, the First Amendment means that the government has no power to restrict expression because of its message, its ideas, the its subject matter, or’s content. The content-based restriction is one that regulates speech based upon either the content or subject to the matter the speech. Regulations that focus on the direct impact of speech on its audience are content based.

Conversely, the content neutral restriction is one that is not based on here the content or the subject matter of the speech. Content neutral speech relations are those that are justified without reference to the content of the relate speech, said Tulsa criminal defense attorney Stephen Cale.

The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals said that it was clear that the legislature intended to restrict the use of electronic technology in the state into Maine and line of conduct in our order society. Statutory provision at issue causes it to be unlawful for a person can with a minor to the use of electronic technology for the purpose of facilitating, encouraging, offering, or soliciting sexual conduct or communicate sexual per interest within a minor, or other individual the person police the minor. Therefore, the appellate court found statute regulates speech based upon its content or subject matter.

Content-based regulations are considered presumptively invalid subject to strict scrutiny. However, the government may regulate the content of constitutionally protected speech in order to provide a compelling interest of the chooses the least restrictive means to further the articulated interests.

On appeal, the state argued that this statute furthers the compelling state interest in protecting minors from luring abduction, sexual expectation, sexual abuse, human trafficking and child prostitution. The appellate court agreed. The plain language of the statute reveals that the legislature intent to prevent individuals from using electronic technology to sexual exploit or sexually abuse minors. The fact that the legislature placed a statue within Oklahoma’s law on obscenity and chopper not your thing also demonstrates its intended purpose.

The legislature placement of the statute section also directed the Oklahoma state Bureau of investigation to establish the crimes against children unit. Let’s like to test the unit with the primary purpose of the skating in a crimes committed against children, including, but not limited to, offenses alleged chopper and solicitation letters from if you come prostitution or other sex-related offenses. The inherent growth in our societies that minors be protected. As the Supreme Court said in Prince vs. Massachusetts, democratic society rests, for its content is, find healthy, well-rounded growth of young people into full maturity as citizens. This includes safeguarding the physical and psychological well-being of the minor. Prevention of sexual exportation abuse of children cusses is a government objective of surpassing importance.

The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals noted that no other aspect of my life has the unique attributes of electronic technology. It is uniquely accessible to children, even those too young to read. The issues are at The finest electronic technology as they have no meaningful opportunity to avoid it. Also, we live in a global, information-based economy in the workplace is increasingly becoming technology driven. Adolescence also considered to be a lifeline to the social network. Excluding computer use for schoolwork, young people use electronic technology on average of 7.38 hours a day.

The defendant asserted that his interest was not present within the circumstances of case, he claims that he is not a sexual predator and that his relationship the girls consensual. He argues that the girl was not a minor because she had reached the age of consent prior to his sending text messages for which was charged in the present case. However the Oklahoma court of criminal appeals not persuaded by this argument, said Tulsa criminal defense attorney Stephen Cale.

The appellate court said that the defendant confuses the age of majority with his consent. The edge majorities the age at which an individual is recognized as an adult. Is an angel which a person attains full legal rights, especially civil and political rights such as the right to vote. The edge majorities a separate and distinct category from the age of criminal responsibility, the age of reason, and the age of consent. In contrast, the age of consent is the age at which a person is legally capable of agreeing to sexual intercourse.

The age of consent in Oklahoma statutorily defined. Where there is no mental illness or any other else in soundness of mine, the age consent for sexual activity is 16 years old.

The appellate court said that establishing the age of consent is 16 years old does not detract from the compelling state interest that is within the statute. It was within the legislature’s authority to establish the age of consent for sexual activity is 16 years old was still seek to discourage 16 and 17-year-old youth from engaging in sexual activity. The matter defining crimes of fiction degrees of punishment is one of the legislators powers.

The circumstances the of the defendant’s case shows compelling state governmental interest that the statute serves. The defendant used technology to sexual exploit the teenage victim in the present case. She was 15 years old. The defendant use electronic technology to facilitate sexual contact with her, lured her from her parents home, and engage in sexual conduct with her.

At sentencing, the trial court received evidence concerning the impact of the defendant’s offenses. Grill had been ostracized by many of her classmates. However, she was glad that her friends had reported the circumstances because she need to be brought out of the situation. She explained that the relationship was not mutual. She admitted that she had told defendant she would kiss him and engage in sexual conduct within the text messages explained that the text did not seem real. Which was face-to-face with the defendant, she was scared, refused to engage in the acts, and even post defendant away. She said that she try to break off the relationship several times but the appellant flooded her friends with text and phone calls bugging them about her. In fact, he pulled over one of her friends to convince her to get back with him.