Lexplug logoLexplug

Rice v. Paladin Enterprises, Inc.

Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
128 F.3d 233, 1997 WL 702330 (1997)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

The First Amendment does not protect speech that aids and abets criminal conduct when the speaker acts with the specific intent to facilitate or encourage the crime. A publication containing detailed, technical instructions on how to commit murder is not protected abstract advocacy when the publisher knows and intends for it to be used by criminals to commit murder.


Facts:

  • Lawrence Horn hired James Perry to murder his ex-wife, Mildred Horn, and their quadriplegic son, Trevor Horn, so that Horn could inherit a $2 million trust.
  • In preparation, James Perry purchased the book 'Hit Man: A Technical Manual for Independent Contractors' from its publisher, Paladin Enterprises.
  • The book provided explicit, step-by-step instructions on numerous aspects of contract killing, including weapon selection, silencer construction, surveillance, murder techniques, and crime scene concealment.
  • On March 3, 1993, Perry murdered Mildred Horn, Trevor Horn, and Trevor's nurse, Janice Saunders.
  • Perry meticulously followed dozens of specific instructions from 'Hit Man' in planning and executing the triple murder.
  • For the purposes of the lawsuit, Paladin Enterprises stipulated that it intended to attract and assist criminals and that it intended and had knowledge that 'Hit Man' would be used by criminals to plan and execute murders.

Procedural Posture:

  • The families of the murder victims filed a wrongful death lawsuit against Paladin Enterprises in federal district court, alleging Paladin aided and abetted the murders.
  • The parties stipulated that the sole issue to be decided on summary judgment was whether the First Amendment provided a complete defense to the civil action.
  • The district court granted Paladin's motion for summary judgment, holding that the First Amendment barred the plaintiffs' claims.
  • The plaintiffs (appellants) appealed the grant of summary judgment to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, with Paladin Enterprises as the appellee.

Locked

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does the First Amendment provide a complete defense to a civil aiding and abetting claim against a publisher who marketed and sold a detailed instructional manual on how to commit murder, with the stipulated intent that it would be used by criminals to commit murder for hire?


Opinions:

Majority - Luttig

No, the First Amendment does not bar a civil aiding and abetting claim against the publisher in these circumstances. Speech that constitutes criminal aiding and abetting is not protected by the First Amendment. The protections for abstract advocacy of lawlessness established in Brandenburg v. Ohio do not extend to speech that provides detailed, technical instructions on how to commit a crime, especially when the publisher has the specific intent to assist in that crime's commission. Paladin's stipulations that it intended for the book to be used by criminals for murder, coupled with the book's nature as a pure instructional manual devoid of political or social ideas, place its speech outside the protection of the First Amendment. This speech is an integral part of criminal conduct, not a discussion of ideas, and therefore can be subject to civil liability.



Analysis:

This decision significantly clarifies the boundary between protected abstract advocacy under Brandenburg and unprotected speech that facilitates criminal acts. The court establishes that a publisher's specific intent is a critical factor in stripping speech of First Amendment protection in an aiding and abetting context. The ruling distinguishes this case from 'copycat' scenarios, where a publisher lacks the intent to cause harm, thereby narrowing the potential for chilling legitimate speech. This case sets a precedent that publishers cannot knowingly and intentionally provide detailed criminal instructions under the guise of protected speech, especially when the content has no legitimate social, political, or artistic value.

🤖 Gunnerbot:
Query Rice v. Paladin Enterprises, Inc. (1997) directly. You can ask questions about any aspect of the case. If it's in the case, Gunnerbot will know.
Locked
Subscribe to Lexplug to chat with the Gunnerbot about this case.

Unlock the full brief for Rice v. Paladin Enterprises, Inc.