Practice question
A law clearly punishes intentionally destroying another person's computer files without right. A challenger identifies no protected expression that it reaches and relies only on fear of punishment for that destruction. Under Disini's data-interference analysis, is this alone a sufficient speech-overbreadth showing?
- Yes, all electronic acts are protected speech.
- No; ordinary deterrence of the described harmful conduct is not by itself chilling of protected expression.
- Yes, every penal consequence establishes overbreadth.
- Yes, because property destruction can never be regulated.
- No, because no cybercrime provision may ever be reviewed.
Legal references
- Disini v. Secretary of Justice, G.R. No. 203335 et al., February 11, 2014, main decision, overbreadth and facial review: https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_203335_2014.html
Answer this question in flashcards to review your response and continue practicing.