The term “void for vagueness” can be used in legal proceedings to indicate that a law or language is not specific enough to be properly understood. In other words, the terminology in the law is too vague, and therefore lacking in clarity to be considered enforceable.
The use of void for vagueness originated in a Supreme Court case in the United States in 1926 that was focused on a local ordinance with potentially overly broad language. In 1926, the court determined that the ordinance should be declared void for vagueness because it was too broad and didn’t provide clear-cut guidelines for citizens.
This ruling established the void for vagueness doctrine, which states that if a law fails to provide clear standards for individuals to know exactly what is and is not permissible under the law, then the law should be deemed void. This principle also applies when an individual is asked to follow too many broad and uncertain requirements.
A Modern Example: Copyright Infringement
Void for vagueness can still be applied to modern cases. For example, let’s look at copyright infringement. In order to prove copyright infringement, the plaintiff needs to show that the defendant has copied or distributed protected material. This must be framed as a specific event, such as copying an image from a website or distributing a bootleg copy of a film.
But what if the plaintiff’s complaint isn’t specific enough, and the defendant claims that they did not commit copyright infringement by distributing any material? If the plaintiff hasn’t provided evidence to prove otherwise, the case could be dismissed by a judge as void for vagueness.
The Takeaway:
In short, it is important for criminal, civil, and other legal proceedings to define precise language. If the language is too vague, then it could become void for vagueness, or voidable. Businesses and individuals should form their legal documents in such a way that they are not tempted to appeal to this doctrine.