7 Shocking Truths About The Son Of Sam Law: How A Killer's Story Rewrote The First Amendment

The "Son of Sam" law is one of the most controversial and legally complex pieces of legislation in American history, born from a public outcry over a serial killer's potential payday. As of December 2025, the law—officially known as a "notoriety-for-profit" statute—continues to evolve, facing new challenges in the age of true crime podcasts, Netflix documentaries, and self-published digital content. Its core purpose remains simple: to prevent criminals from financially benefiting from the stories of their horrific crimes, instead diverting those funds to their victims. The journey of this law from its 1977 enactment to its modern, revised form is a fascinating case study in the collision of victims' rights and the fundamental principles of the First Amendment. The original New York State law was famously struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court, forcing states across the nation to redraft their statutes to be more narrowly tailored and constitutionally sound. Understanding the current status of the Son of Sam law requires a deep dive into its legal history, a history that is still being written today.

The Man and The Law: David Berkowitz and The 1977 Outcry

The original "Son of Sam" law is inextricably linked to the infamous serial killer David Berkowitz.

David Berkowitz: A Brief Biography

• Alias: Son of Sam, The .44 Caliber Killer
• Born: June 1, 1953 (as Richard David Falco) in Brooklyn, New York
• Crimes: A series of unprovoked shooting attacks in New York City between July 1976 and July 1977.
• Victims: Killed six people and wounded seven others.
• Arrest: August 10, 1977
• Motive: Claimed a demon spoke to him through his neighbor’s dog, "Sam."
• Sentence: Six consecutive life sentences (365 years).
• Current Status: Incarcerated in the Sullivan Correctional Facility in New York.

1. The Law Was a Direct Response to a Media Frenzy

The New York State legislature enacted the original Son of Sam law in 1977. This was a direct, swift response to reports that David Berkowitz was receiving lucrative offers from publishers and media outlets for the rights to his story following his arrest. The public was outraged that a mass murderer could profit from his crimes while his victims and their families were left to cope with trauma and financial burdens. The law's intent was to seize these "crime profits" and place them into an escrow account administered by the New York State Crime Victims Board.

The Legal Earthquake: Why The Original Law Failed

Despite its noble intentions, the original New York statute was legally flawed, leading to a landmark constitutional challenge that reshaped American law.

2. The Supreme Court Ruled the Original Law Unconstitutional

In 1991, the U.S. Supreme Court delivered a stunning blow to the law in the case of *Simon & Schuster, Inc. v. New York State Crime Victims Board*. The case centered on the book *Wiseguy: Life in a Mafia Family*, which detailed the life of mobster Henry Hill (later the basis for the film *Goodfellas*). The New York State Crime Victims Board attempted to seize Hill's profits from the book using the Son of Sam law.

3. The Law Was Deemed "Overinclusive" and a First Amendment Violation

The Supreme Court unanimously struck down the original law, holding that it violated the First Amendment's guarantee of free speech. The court found the statute to be "content-based," meaning it singled out and penalized speech based on its subject matter—specifically, works that described the criminal's thoughts, feelings, or recollections about their crime. Furthermore, the law was deemed "overinclusive" because it could potentially apply to any work of literature, journalism, or art that mentioned a crime, even if the person was not convicted, or if the work was a classic like *The Autobiography of Malcolm X* or *Civil Disobedience* by Henry David Thoreau.

The Modern Evolution: The Grandson of Sam Laws

The Supreme Court’s ruling did not end the effort to prevent criminals from profiting. Instead, it forced states and the federal government to create new, constitutionally compliant "notoriety-for-profit" laws.

4. The Revised Law Focuses on Victims' Civil Suits, Not State Seizure

The modern New York law, codified as Executive Law § 632-a and revised in 2001, is a completely different legal animal. The key difference is that it no longer mandates the automatic seizure of all profits by a state board. Instead, the revised statute creates a mechanism for crime victims to bring a civil lawsuit against the convicted person. This shift from state-mandated forfeiture to an enhanced civil remedy helps the law survive constitutional scrutiny because it is less focused on regulating speech content and more focused on providing a path for victims' compensation.

5. The Statute of Limitations Was Dramatically Extended

A critical component of the revised Son of Sam laws is the extended statute of limitations. Traditionally, victims had a very limited time to sue a perpetrator in a civil court. The revised New York law allows a victim to bring a civil action against the convicted person within three years of the discovery of any profits from the crime story. In some cases, the statute of limitations can be as long as 20 years after the crime, or even longer if the criminal is still receiving notoriety-related funds. This extended window is vital for victims who may not learn of a criminal's profits until years after their conviction.

6. The Scope Now Covers Digital and Minor Crimes

The modern notoriety-for-profit laws have expanded their reach to address the complexities of the 21st-century media landscape. * Broader Definition of Profit: The revised laws cover a wider array of assets and funds, including money from book deals, movie rights, magazine articles, and, critically, digital content like podcasts, paid interviews, and social media monetization. * Misdemeanors Included: New York’s revised law also expanded the scope to include profits derived from misdemeanors, not just felonies, provided the victim suffered physical, mental, or emotional injury. This is a significant expansion from the original statute. * Federal Law: The federal government and over 40 states have their own versions of "Son of Sam" laws, often titled "notoriety-for-profit" statutes. These state-level laws, such as those in California and Massachusetts, must all adhere to the First Amendment standards set by the *Simon & Schuster* ruling.

The Current Controversy: True Crime and Digital Profits

The debate over the Son of Sam law is more relevant than ever due to the booming popularity of the true crime genre. The legal system is continually grappling with how to apply a 1977 law to platforms that didn't exist two decades ago.

7. The True Crime Podcast and Social Media Loophole

The biggest current controversy centers on the "true crime industrial complex." While the law is designed to stop the *criminal* from profiting, it does not stop the media, podcasters, or documentarians from making millions off the criminal's story. A recent high-profile example involved Anna Sorokin (Anna Delvey), who was convicted of theft and grand larceny. While her story was adapted into a major Netflix series, New York officials were able to use Executive Law § 632-a to seize a portion of her earnings from Netflix, totaling over $320,000, to pay her victims and state fines. This case demonstrated the modern law's effectiveness in targeting digital profits. The LSI keyword "true crime podcast profits" highlights an ongoing legal gray area: * If a convicted person's family or friends profit from a podcast or book, the law's application becomes complex. * The criminal may receive "in-kind" payments, such as commissary funds or legal aid, rather than direct cash, which can be difficult to trace and seize. * The constitutional challenge of regulating speech remains a central issue, with defense attorneys arguing that any attempt to limit a former inmate's ability to tell their own story—even a story about their rehabilitation—is a form of illegal content-based restriction. In the end, the "Son of Sam" law is a dynamic legal instrument. It represents a powerful societal consensus that criminals should not be rewarded for their notoriety. However, its continued existence is a delicate balancing act between the moral imperative of victims' rights and the non-negotiable protection of free speech under the First Amendment. The legal battle over who profits from crime, and how, is far from over.