Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
5 Michigan opinions name it 2 courts 2018–2025 4 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Michigan courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Buchanan v. Crislergreen2 sentences2025The speech-integral-to-criminal-conduct exception generally applies to stalking and cyberstalking statutes, and, on that basis, this Court has rejected First Amendment challenges to those statutes, stating that “posting a message in violation of MCL 750.411s would not constitute protected speech because the message is integral to the harassment of the victim insofar as it leads to, and is intended to cause, unconsented contacts that terrorize, frighten, intimidate, threaten, harass, or molest the victim.” See Buchanan, 323 Mich App at 185-186. 2024Id. “[C]ourts analyzing First Amendment challenges relating to online postings and harassment often use a case-specific approach to determine whether the speech-integral-to-criminal-conduct exception may be applied.” Id. at 188. “[T]his analysis often hinges on whether the victim is a public or private figure and whether the topic is one of public concern.” Id. | 3 | 4 |
United States v. Sayergreen2 sentences2023It also found precedent involving privacy rights distinguishable, noting that “respondent is not attempting to stop the flow of information into his own household, but to the public.” Id. at 420 . 4 Buchanan cited the following examples of cases applying the speech-integral-to-criminal- conduct exception to stalking and cyberstalking statutes: See, e.g., United States v Sayer, 748 F3d 425, 433-434 (CA 1, 2014); United States v Petrovic, 701 F3d 849, 855 (CA 8, 2012); United States v Osinger, 753 F3d 939, 947-948 (CA 9, 2014); United States v Matusiewicz, 84 F Supp 3d 363, 372-373 (D Del, 2015) 2023It also found precedent involving privacy rights distinguishable, noting that “respondent is not attempting to stop the flow of information into his own household, but to the public.” Id. at 420 . 4 Buchanan cited the following examples of cases applying the speech-integral-to-criminal- conduct exception to stalking and cyberstalking statutes: See, e.g., United States v Sayer, 748 F3d 425, 433-434 (CA 1, 2014); United States v Petrovic, 701 F3d 849, 855 (CA 8, 2012); United States v Osinger, 753 F3d 939, 947-948 (CA 9, 2014); United States v Matusiewicz, 84 F Supp 3d 363, 372-373 (D Del, 2015) | 2 | 2 |
Giboney v. Empire Storage & Ice Co.green2 sentences2024Here, the allegedly unlawful conduct was not “in part initiated, evidenced, or carried out by means of language,” Giboney, 336 US at 502 (emphasis added); instead, the allegedly unlawful conduct consisted solely of the speech at issue. 17 We decline to apply the speech-integral-to-criminal-conduct exception under these circumstances, and leave for another day the appropriate opportunity to further define the boundaries of this controversial exception to constitutional free-speech protections. 17 Because it is possible to violate MCL 168.932(a) by means of either conduct or conduct plus speech, 2018The speech-integral-to-criminal-conduct exception has its origins in Giboney v. Empire Storage & Ice Co. , 336 U.S. 490 , 69 S.Ct. 684 , 93 L.Ed. 834 (1949). | 1 | 2 |
United States v. Christopher Osingergreen2 sentences2023It also found precedent involving privacy rights distinguishable, noting that “respondent is not attempting to stop the flow of information into his own household, but to the public.” Id. at 420 . 4 Buchanan cited the following examples of cases applying the speech-integral-to-criminal- conduct exception to stalking and cyberstalking statutes: See, e.g., United States v Sayer, 748 F3d 425, 433-434 (CA 1, 2014); United States v Petrovic, 701 F3d 849, 855 (CA 8, 2012); United States v Osinger, 753 F3d 939, 947-948 (CA 9, 2014); United States v Matusiewicz, 84 F Supp 3d 363, 372-373 (D Del, 2015) 2023It also found precedent involving privacy rights distinguishable, noting that “respondent is not attempting to stop the flow of information into his own household, but to the public.” Id. at 420 . 4 Buchanan cited the following examples of cases applying the speech-integral-to-criminal- conduct exception to stalking and cyberstalking statutes: See, e.g., United States v Sayer, 748 F3d 425, 433-434 (CA 1, 2014); United States v Petrovic, 701 F3d 849, 855 (CA 8, 2012); United States v Osinger, 753 F3d 939, 947-948 (CA 9, 2014); United States v Matusiewicz, 84 F Supp 3d 363, 372-373 (D Del, 2015) | 1 | 2 |
United States v. Jovica Petrovicgreen2 sentences2023It also found precedent involving privacy rights distinguishable, noting that “respondent is not attempting to stop the flow of information into his own household, but to the public.” Id. at 420 . 4 Buchanan cited the following examples of cases applying the speech-integral-to-criminal- conduct exception to stalking and cyberstalking statutes: See, e.g., United States v Sayer, 748 F3d 425, 433-434 (CA 1, 2014); United States v Petrovic, 701 F3d 849, 855 (CA 8, 2012); United States v Osinger, 753 F3d 939, 947-948 (CA 9, 2014); United States v Matusiewicz, 84 F Supp 3d 363, 372-373 (D Del, 2015) 2023It also found precedent involving privacy rights distinguishable, noting that “respondent is not attempting to stop the flow of information into his own household, but to the public.” Id. at 420 . 4 Buchanan cited the following examples of cases applying the speech-integral-to-criminal- conduct exception to stalking and cyberstalking statutes: See, e.g., United States v Sayer, 748 F3d 425, 433-434 (CA 1, 2014); United States v Petrovic, 701 F3d 849, 855 (CA 8, 2012); United States v Osinger, 753 F3d 939, 947-948 (CA 9, 2014); United States v Matusiewicz, 84 F Supp 3d 363, 372-373 (D Del, 2015) | 1 | 2 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Michigan. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Commonwealth v. Johnson
green
2 sentences2023It also found precedent involving privacy rights distinguishable, noting that “respondent is not attempting to stop the flow of information into his own household, but to the public.” Id. at 420 . 4 Buchanan cited the following examples of cases applying the speech-integral-to-criminal- conduct exception to stalking and cyberstalking statutes: See, e.g., United States v Sayer, 748 F3d 425, 433-434 (CA 1, 2014); United States v Petrovic, 701 F3d 849, 855 (CA 8, 2012); United States v Osinger, 753 F3d 939, 947-948 (CA 9, 2014); United States v Matusiewicz, 84 F Supp 3d 363, 372-373 (D Del, 2015) 2023It also found precedent involving privacy rights distinguishable, noting that “respondent is not attempting to stop the flow of information into his own household, but to the public.” Id. at 420 . 4 Buchanan cited the following examples of cases applying the speech-integral-to-criminal- conduct exception to stalking and cyberstalking statutes: See, e.g., United States v Sayer, 748 F3d 425, 433-434 (CA 1, 2014); United States v Petrovic, 701 F3d 849, 855 (CA 8, 2012); United States v Osinger, 753 F3d 939, 947-948 (CA 9, 2014); United States v Matusiewicz, 84 F Supp 3d 363, 372-373 (D Del, 2015) | 2 | 2018–2023 |
Organization for a Better Austin v. Keefe
green
2 sentences2023It also found precedent involving privacy rights distinguishable, noting that “respondent is not attempting to stop the flow of information into his own household, but to the public.” Id. at 420 . 4 Buchanan cited the following examples of cases applying the speech-integral-to-criminal- conduct exception to stalking and cyberstalking statutes: See, e.g., United States v Sayer, 748 F3d 425, 433-434 (CA 1, 2014); United States v Petrovic, 701 F3d 849, 855 (CA 8, 2012); United States v Osinger, 753 F3d 939, 947-948 (CA 9, 2014); United States v Matusiewicz, 84 F Supp 3d 363, 372-373 (D Del, 2015) 2023After exploring the elements and intent of MCL 750.411s, id. at 177-180, the Buchanan Court observed: Relevant to this case, several courts have also relied on the speech-integral- to-criminal-conduct exception in rejecting First Amendment challenges to stalking statutes, including cyberstalking statutes. …[4] “The government has a strong and legitimate interest in preventing the harassment of individuals.” Thorne v Bailey, 3 The Supreme Court observed that an injunction against leaflet distribution operated “not to redress alleged private wrongs, but to suppress, on the basis of previous publ | 1 | 2023–2023 |
People v. White
green
2 sentences2023As additional authority, Buchanan also cited People v White, 212 Mich App 298, 311 ; 536 NW2d 876 (1995), which rejected a free-speech challenge to MCL 750.411h and MCL 750.411i because stalking involved a course of conduct consisting of speech combined with conduct. 2023As additional authority, Buchanan also cited People v White, 212 Mich App 298, 311 ; 536 NW2d 876 (1995), which rejected a free-speech challenge to MCL 750.411h and MCL 750.411i because stalking involved a course of conduct consisting of speech combined with conduct. | 1 | 2023–2023 |
United States v. Matusiewicz
green
1 sentence2018See, e.g., Sayer , 748 F.3d at 433-434 ; United States v. Petrovic , 701 F.3d 849 , 855 (C.A. 8, 2012) ; United States v. Osinger , 753 F.3d 939 , 947-948 (C.A. 9, 2014) ; Matusiewicz , 84 F.Supp.3d at 372-373 ; Johnson , 470 Mass. at 310 , 21 N.E.3d 937 ; United States v. Sergentakis , opinion of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, issued June 15, 2015 (Case No. 15-cr-33 (NSR) ), p 7, 2015 WL 3763988 . | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.