THE SON OF SAM LAWS

When David Berkowitz, best known as the Son of Sam killer, was being offered a lot of money for the rights to his story, the State of New York stepped in and said no way was this man going to receive money for is crimes. In 1977, The New York Assembly passed a law requiring any money made from works describing a crime or crimes go to a trust set up for the victims of those said crimes.

The problem with this law is that it is a violation of the First Amendment. Because these laws restrict speech based on its content, it is a violation, says the US Supreme Court.
When a book about the crimes of mafia man, Henry Hill, was released, the state ordered the publisher to suspend all money from the sale to Hill. The publishers sued in 1987, claiming violation of First Amendment Rights (Simon & Schuster Inc. v. New York State Crime Victims BD). The case went to the US Supreme Court, and in 1991, the court ruled that the Son of Sam law did in fact violate First Amendment Rights. The court noted, “A statute is presumptively inconsistent with the First Amendment if it imposes a financial burden on speakers because of the content of their speech.” The High Court also stated that the law is “over inclusive.”

States now are starting to get creative in how they go after criminals and any money made from their crimes.

State of Arizona v. Gravano argued to seize royalties from the book, Underboss: Sammy the Bull Gravano’s story of life in the mafia, violated his First Amendment Rights under Simon & Schuster. An Arizona appeals court rejected his argument in State of Arizona v. Gravano (2002), ruling the Arizona forfeiture statute specifically targeted expressive works, unlike the Son of Sam laws. The State used the RICO law against Gravano since his crimes involved racketeering and organized crime. The state ruled, “Underboss royalties owed to Gravano may be subject to forfeiture regardless of the message conveyed in the book if a causal connection between racketeering and the proceeds exists.”

Gravano appealed to the Arizona Supreme Court, and the US Supreme Court. Both courts refused to review the decision.

Since 1991, California, Nevada, and Rhode Island have had their Son of Sam Laws overturned based on First Amendment rights violations. However, several states still have Son of Sam laws in place.