mad dog legal memo

							           LEGAL OFFICE MEMORANDUM
TO:         SUPERVISORY ATTORNEY
FROM:       DAISIE COLLIER
DATE:       8/6/2012
CASE:       MAD DOG REVIEW V. JONESVILLE
RE:        FIRST AMENDMENT – FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION


                                   STATEMENT OF ASSIGNMENT

        You have asked me to prepare a legal memorandum on the question of whether Jonesville
Ordinance § 355-20 violated Mad Dog Review’s right to freedom of expression. Pursuant to your
request, this memo includes an analysis of the relevant state and federal law as well as case law.

                                                  ISSUE

    Under U.S. Const. Amend. I, did enforcement of Jonesville Ordinance § 355-20 violate Mad Dog
Review’s freedom of expression when it prohibited their public performance, due to the lyrics of one
of their songs that described the city council in explicit terms?

                                            BRIEF ANSWER

         Yes. Jonesville Ordinance § 355-20 violated Mad Dog Review’s freedom of expression due
to the ordinance not having standards for restrictions.

                                                  FACTS

   Mad Dog Review is a controversial, local rap band. The song, “Mad Dog City Council” describes
Jonesville’s City Council in explicit terms using obscene words. Based on this language, the City
Council banned the group from performing in their community under Jonesville Ordinance § 355-20.

                                             ANALYSIS

         The rule of law that governs the right to freedom of expression is the First Amendment of the
United States Constitution. It states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of
religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press;
or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of
grievances.” U.S. Const. Amend. I. To clarify this amendment, we look at case law.
         The First Amendment of the United States Constitution was clarified in the case of Atl.
Beach Casino, Inc. v. Morenzoni, 749 F.Supp. 38 (D. R.I. 1990). In this case, a rap music group
called 2 Live Crew was prevented from performing for the public by Westerly Town Council. The
court stated in order for an ordinance to prevent expression, the ordinance “standards must be
explicitly set out in the ordinance itself, a judicial construction or a [lawfully] well-established
practice.” Id. at ___. The court also stated that restrictions are “permissible” but the regulations must
be “narrowly and precisely tailored to their legitimate objectives.” The court ruled Westerly Town
Council Ordinance was unconstitutional. Id. at ___.

   In our case, just as in the Atl. Beach Casino, Inc., a music group was denied performance in the
community due to a city ordinance that did not narrowly state the restriction. It appears the Jonesville
Ordinance § 355-20 is unconstitutional due to the broad language of restrictions.

     A possible counter argument is that Jonesville Ordinance does narrowly state the restrictions;
therefore, it is constitutional. Jonesville Ordinance § 355-20 states, “The City Council…may prohibit
the public performance of any type of entertainment that does not comport with local standards of
decency or acceptability.” The lyrics in Mad Dog Review’s song may be obscene enough to not
comply with the local standards of acceptability. This counter argument is weak due to the local
standards of acceptability being unknown.

                                              CONCLUSION

    Jonesville Ordinance § 355-20 violated Mad Dog Review’s right to freedom of expression under
the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. The First Amendment prohibits laws
preventing the right of the freedom of speech or the right of the people to assemble. Due to the
broadness of the amendment we look at, Atl. Beach Casino, Inc v. Morenzoni which states a law that
prevents a form of expression must state what exactly it is preventing. Since Jonesville Ordinance §
355-20 does not state what exactly it prevents, it is unconstitutional.




                                                    2