Physical Address
304 North Cardinal St.
Dorchester Center, MA 02124
Blogging about Cops Is Not a Crime – Even If You’re on Probation Darren Chaker was under supervised release when he wrote on his personal blog that Ms. Leesa Fazal, an investigator with the Nevada Attorney General’s Office, was “forced…
The Marion B. Brechner First Amendment Project, along with the ACLU of San Diego and Imperial Counties, the Cato Institute and several other organizations, in support of Darren Chaker filed a friend-of-the-court brief on Sept. 4, 2015 with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the…
Leesa Fazal of Las Vegas worked briefly for the Las Vegas Metro Police Department. She alleged in part Darren Chaker had made a false statement alleging she was “forced out” of the Department. “Specifically, Mr. Chaker wrote that Ms. Leesa…
Blogging about Cops Is Not a Crime – Even If You’re on Probation Darren Chaker, appeals an alleged violation of the First Amendment for blogging about police.
Both R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul.and Chaker v. Crogan, dealt with proscribable speech. Darren Chaker focused on viewpoint discrimination before the District Court for the Southern District of California, California Supreme Court and then before the Ninth Circuit. In…
The R.A.V. factors are not applicable because section 148.6(a) discriminates on the basis of viewpoint. Darren Chaker defended the decision of the Ninth Circuit where it decided an important question concerning viewpointdiscrimination. Like the statute at issue in R.A.V. v.…
California False Complaint Statute Penal Code Section 148.6 Constitutes Impermissible Content- and Viewpoint-Based Discrimination By Selectively Targeting Speech Critical Of Peace Officers. Darren Chaker argued that Penal Code section 148.6 is limited to defamatory speech that may be proscribed under New…
Chaker v. Croganhas been cited hundreds of times and continues to be written about extensively. Some great publications about viewpoint discrimination are: * Smolla & Nimmer on Freedom of Speech s 10:22.50, Brandenburg v. Ohio: Intent and imminence standard–Bond and…