"False report about planting bomb, explosive, or weapon of mass destruction"

"False report about planting bomb, explosive, or weapon of mass destruction"

I'm curious about a few cases where people made jokes about bombs or the like at airports and were arrested or at least detained. For example, a woman as arrested in Miami and charged with violating this law:

--790.163 False report about planting bomb, explosive, or weapon of mass destruction; penalty.—

(1) It is unlawful for any person to make a false report, with intent to deceive, mislead, or otherwise misinform any person, concerning the placing or planting of any bomb, dynamite, other deadly explosive, or weapon of mass destruction as defined in s. 790.166; and any person convicted thereof commits a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

(2) Notwithstanding any other law, adjudication of guilt or imposition of sentence for a violation of this section may not be suspended, deferred, or withheld. However, the state attorney may move the sentencing court to reduce or suspend the sentence of any person who is convicted of a violation of this section and who provides substantial assistance in the identification, arrest, or conviction of any of his or her accomplices, accessories, coconspirators, or principals.

(3) Proof that a person accused of violating this section knowingly made a false report is prima facie evidence of the accused person's intent to deceive, mislead, or otherwise misinform any person.

(4) In addition to any other penalty provided by law with respect to any person who is convicted of a violation of this section that resulted in the mobilization or action of any law enforcement officer or any state or local agency, a person convicted of a violation of this section may be required by the court to pay restitution for all of the costs and damages arising from the criminal conduct.

History.—s. 3, ch. 59-29; s. 749, ch. 71-136; s. 1, ch. 2002-28.

--

This law seems to violate the 1st Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Of course this type of law makes sense, but how do we reconcile it with the right to free speech? Along the same lines, how can the government restrict access to guns if the 2nd amendment gives the unconditional right to bear arms? Again, the laws make sense, but what's the constitutional rationale?What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)?

atj2 said:

This law seems to violate the 1st Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Of course this type of law makes sense, but how do we reconcile it with the right to free speech? Along the same lines, how can the government restrict access to guns if the 2nd amendment gives the unconditional right to bear arms? Again, the laws make sense, but what's the constitutional rationale?What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)?

Click to expand...

Free speech is not unlimited, and largely concerns political expression - not the right to cause fear, panic, or unreasonable concern. This has long been pretty well settled law with regards to the limits of the First Amendment.

Entire books are written on these two subjects with the 2nd Amendment issue being the most hotly contested of the two. Answering them here in an internet forum would be difficult at best. If you Google your question, you will likely find numerous websites and books that will discuss these issues at great length.

- Carl

atj2 said:

Of course this type of law makes sense, but how do we reconcile it with the right to free speech?

Click to expand...

An interesting trend has developed in the court systems that classifies speech. You have commercial speech (advertisements), political speech, religious speech et al.

As you read more (not doing homework for you), you will see that each category of speech has more intrinsic value attached to it by the court systems, which then determines just how "free" it really is.