The plaintiffs in the case are the People of the State of New York. The defendant in the case is Nicolas Pierre Louis.
The plaintiffs in the case, the People of the State of New York offer a deposition in the case for aggravated harassment by the defendant. A New York Injury Lawyer said the plaintiff states that in between the dates of February 22, 2010 through April of 2010, while employed by the Nassau County District Attorney’s Office, as the Assistant Defensive Attorney, I received a number of voice mails from the defendant, Nicolas Pierre – Louis. The voice mails consisted of screaming, yelling, and the use of profanity. Each of the voice mails are both alarming and annoying, filled with profanity and threats as well as offensive comments. These recordings caused me to fear for both my safety and the safety of one of my co-workers as well.
The defendant makes the argument that while his statements on the recordings may be both offensive and vulgar, they are protected constitutionally through the right to free speech, under the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America. He states that because of his rights under the first amendment, there is no basis for the criminal charge that the plaintiff is seeking.
A Bronx Personal Injury Lawyer said the defendant argues that though the defendant’s statements may be vulgar and offensive, they are constitutionally protected speech and therefore should not form the basis of a criminal charge.
Over the years, the courts have sought to define areas where free speech is justifiable. There have been many cases throughout the years where the First Amendment right of the freedom of speech has been argued. Cases that have been in favor of the plaintiffs were the direct result of the defendant speaking in a manner that is intended to induce lawless actions and is likely to incite or produce these types of actions. Any type of speech in this manner is not protected by the first amendment. Additionally, if the words used by an individual can be deemed as threatening or harassing in nature and the make the other individual feel truly threatened, the protection of free speech is void. However, the First Amendment does protect individuals from being discriminated against by the government by not allowing the government to proscribe speech or expressive conduct simply because they disapprove of the ideas that are being expressed.
After reviewing the facts of the case, including the supporting deposition as given by the plaintiff, which contains the statements that were made by the defendant, the court has decided that while the statements made by the defendant were in fact vituperative and vulgar, they do not rise to the level of “fighting words” as described by the plaintiffs. A Brooklyn Personal Injury Lawyer said the statements also do not rise to the level of being a true threat. While the defendant does use a number of derisive terms to describe the plaintiff the threats seem to be confined to having the ADA fired.
If you have a legal issue, whether it involves a car accident, medical malpractice mistake or a construction accident, call Stephen Bilkis and Associates for guidance. We will provide you with a free consultation and ensure that your rights are protected.