The overbreadth doctrine is best described as the principle that invalidates a law that violates the constitutional First Amendment right. The First Amendment provides the safeguard for freedom of speech and expression from government intrusion in the United States (Staff, 2007). If those freedoms are felt to be violated the overbreadth doctrine may be applied to nullify that law and possibly overturn court ruling against a defendant. “The excessive intrusion on First Amendment rights, beyond what the government had a compelling interest to restrict, renders the law unconstitutional” (West’s, 2008). If found unconstitutional, a section of the law may be revised or the entire statute could be voided to be rewritten.
State v. Lilburn, 265 Mont. 258, 875 P.2d 1036 (1994)
John Lilburn was found guilty in Montana by jury trial in Gallatin County Justice Court of hunter harassment. Lilburn interfered with the legal hunting of bison by standing in front of hunter’s rifle twice preventing him from shooting his target. Lilburn filed an appeal through Eighteenth Judicial District Court, which declared…show more content… 39). Lilburn’s conduct of standing in front of the hunter’s rifle infringed upon the legal hunting of a wild animal and was not related to any form of speech. The Brodrick case determined that if a statute mentioned conduct and not specifically speech then it may only be invalidated if it’s overbreadth is “real and substantial” (Brody & Acker, 2010). Lilburn implicated that the statute may apply to future or “imaginary” instances where protesters could interfere with the hunting of wild
