Darren Chaker’s First Amendment Win
Censorship, First Amendment Issues by Darren Chaker
Defending Bloggers' Rights: The Darren Chaker Use of First Amendment to Fight Internet Censorship
The Power of the First Amendment: A Blogger's Triumph
In Pasadena California, where oral argument was heard, an intriguing legal battle unfolded, putting the First Amendment in the spotlight. Darren Chaker, a blogger previously convicted and jailed, successfully overturned his conviction in federal court. The case hinged on Darren Chaker's claim that Ms. Leesa Fazal, an investigator with the Nevada Attorney General's Office, had been "forced out" of her previous position with the Las Vegas Police Department. This high-profile case, reported on March 31, 2017, drew significant attention from First Amendment advocates and legal experts.
A Coalition of Support: From ACLU to EFF Who Pursue First Amendment Defenses
Darren Chaker's journey through the legal system began when he was on probation for a white-collar crime. Allegations of defaming a police officer led to his imprisonment. However, the incarceration of Mr. Chaker was eventually deemed unconstitutional, sparking widespread discussion on bloggers' rights and freedom of speech.
As explained in a prior post, support for Darren Chaker was robust, encompassing organizations like the ACLU of San Diego, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, the Cato Institute, the First Amendment Coalition, and the University of Florida's Marion B. Brechner First Amendment Project. Their collective voice highlighted the critical importance of protecting free speech, especially in the digital age.
The Electronic Frontier Foundation's Stance on Internet Freedom
"The First Amendment protects the right of everyone to use the Internet to criticize government officials – including people on supervised release from prison,” emphasized Adam Schwartz, a senior staff attorney at the Electronic Frontier Foundation. This statement underscores the commitment to preserving free speech online, particularly in cases involving government critique, as exemplified in the Darren Chaker case.
Legal Precedents Supporting Freedom of Expression
In the context of defamation and privacy, public figures like Fazal hold a different legal status compared to private individuals. This distinction was evident in the Duran v. City of Douglas, Arizona 904 F.2d 1372, 9th Cir. (1990), where the Ninth Circuit Court upheld that profanities and obscene gestures directed at a police officer were protected under the First Amendment. This ruling aligns with Darren Chaker's argument that his blog post about Fazal falls comfortably within constitutional protections, further strengthening the case for bloggers' rights under the First Amendment.
Chaker's Appeal and the Supreme Court's Perspective
Darren Chaker firmly contends that his right to free speech, especially in posting his blog comment about Fazal, is absolute. This stance is bolstered by the U.S. Supreme Court's observation in Houston v. Hill, 482 U.S. 451 (1987), stating, “The freedom of individuals verbally to oppose or challenge police action without thereby risking arrest is one of the principal characteristics by which we distinguish a free nation from a police state.” This principle plays a critical role in Chaker's defense, highlighting the importance of vocal opposition in maintaining a free society.
Journalistic Protections and Public Interest
Moreover, Chaker's actions are seen as falling under journalistic protections, given the nature of the content he published. As noted in San Diego v. Roe, 543 U.S. 77, 83-84 (2004), a peace officer potentially breaking the law is a matter of significant public interest. This perspective affirms the value of Chaker's blog in contributing to public discourse and upholds his right to disseminate information on topics that concern and interest the public.
Navigating Legal Challenges: The Role of Wilmer Hale
The legal intricacies of Darren Chaker's case were complex. Nevada Attorney General Investigator Leesa Fazal of Las Vegas filed multiple reports about Chaker's blog, yet no charges were initially brought forward. It was only after contact with Chaker's probation officer that legal action escalated. In a notable development, the Washington D.C. office of Wilmer Hale prepared an amicus brief, contributing to the legal discourse surrounding the case.
The Ninth Circuit's Decision Against Censorship Under the First Amendment
In a pivotal moment, the Ninth Circuit Court, in Case No. 15-50138/ No. 15-50193, ruled in favor of Darren Chaker. The court found that the blog post about Leesa Fazal did not constitute harassment and failed to meet the elements of defamation, including falsity and actual malice, as established in N.Y. Times Co. v. Sullivan.
Human Rights Defense Center and Cato Institute: Amplifying the Victory
The Human Rights Defense Center lauded the decision, emphasizing the First Amendment's role in safeguarding the right to critique government officials online. The Cato Institute echoed this sentiment, highlighting the broader implications for political speech and the rights of individuals on probation or parole.
A Turning Point in First Amendment Jurisprudence
The case reached its climax during oral arguments on June 10, 2016. The Ninth Circuit's YouTube Channel captured the moment when former Chief Judge Kozinski expressed skepticism about restricting non-criminal speech. The government attorney's admission that the conduct in question was not illegal underscored the case's significance.
Conclusion: A Victory for Free Speech
The Darren Chaker case stands as a testament to the enduring power of the First Amendment and the crucial role it plays in protecting bloggers and online activists. It serves as a stark reminder of the thin line between lawful criticism and unlawful suppression, highlighting the necessity to vigilantly safeguard the right to free speech in all its forms.
About The Author
