1250 Broadway, 27th Floor New York, NY 10001

SILENCE OF THE LAM?

Although he claimed that he had a constitutionally protected -- First Amendment -- right to sell his t-shirts in a public park (because his items had artistic images on them), Ray Lam was still convicted of unlicensed general vending.

In order to determine whether someone is engaging in an act of "self-expression," courts will usually consider the "dominant purpose" of the activity. When the case got to our state's highest court, the Court of Appeals thought that the guy's conduct was primarily commercial in nature (because of how the shirts were displayed and priced), and opted to let the conviction stand.

Should he have gone shirtless?

To view a copy of the Court of Appeal's decision, please use this link: People v. Lam

Categories: