Minnesota v. Final Exit Network (Part II)

I wanted to follow-up from my brief post, earlier this week, about Tuesday's motions hearing in Minnesota v. Final Exit Network (Dakota Cty., Minn.).  The hearing has since also been covered in the local and national media.  Here are some highlights from the hearing:



Rivas:  Explained how the prohibition on advising and encouraging suicide is not only content-based but also viewpoint based.  For example, a law banning billboards over 20 feet would be content neutral.  A law banning advertising on billboards would be content based.  A law banning gun advertising would be both content based and viewpoint based.  Here, Minn. Stat. 609.215 focuses on assisted suicide specifically and in only one direction.  There is no prohibition on talking someone out of suicide.  



It appears the state conceded this much.  That means the statute is presumptively unconstitutional.  The state has the burden of establishing that the statute passes "strict scrutiny" analysis, that the state has a compelling state interest that is narrowly tailored.  That seems like a tall order.  While preventing suicide is a compelling state interest, including speech is not necessary to that objective.  



Lundquist:  Explained how the state concedes the book Final Exit is not illegal.  But then how is the line drawn?   Is it okay to sell the book to 100 people but not to just 1 person?  Is it okay to read the book to 100 people but not to just 1 person?  



Judge Asphaug:  Asked about a Kushner play at the Guthrie Theatre where a character thought he had a terminal illness.  Another character gave explicit instructions on stage, with props.  She asked: "Could the playright and actors be prosecuted for this?"  The state responded that such speech lacks the intent to affect an individual person.