Revealed: Leesa Fazal’s Ultimate Betrayal Exposed by Darren Chaker
Social media censorship by government is so common, the ACLU has to address it.
The Basics of a Jailed Blogger Darren Chaker Who Created a Civil Rights Army to Reverse a US District Court Who Allowed False Complaints of Leesa Fazal to Ultimately Lead to Reversal
Darren Chaker found himself embroiled in a legal battle while under supervised release when he made a statement on his personal blog about Las Vegas native Leesa Fazal, an investigator with the Nevada Attorney General’s Office, suggesting that she had been “forced out” of her previous position with the Las Vegas Police Department. This statement led the district court overseeing Darren Chaker’s probation to deem it a violation of the requirement that he refrain from “disparaging or defaming others on the internet.” Consequently, Darren Chaker was returned to prison, a decision that, in essence, imposed an unconstitutional prior restraint on his speech.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!Darren Chaker Finds First Amendment Implications of Disgraced Nevada Attorney General Investigator Leesa Fazal
Nevada resident Leesa Fazal, who at the was trying to make it in her second law enforcement job subsequent to be forced out of the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department,. Shecomplained to the court she did not like the posts making light of her multiple failures in law enforcement being made public. One of several embarrassing moments for the high school educated officer was the fact the Nevada Supreme Court found she had falsely arrested a person due to not comprehending the law. See news article. In another instance, Leesa Fazal had lost her gun.
Nonetheless, Leesa Fazal did not appreciate the negative highlights in during her short stint in law enforcement. However, speech critical of public officials such as police is within the scope political speech under the First Amendment.It is settled law “When the government targets not subject matter, but particular views taken by speakers on a subject, the violation of the First Amendment is all the more blatant.” Rosenberger v. Rector & Visitors of Univ. of Va., 515 U.S. 819, 829 (1995). This is know as viewpoint discrimination.
In 2005, Darren Chaker was able to strike down Penal Code section 148.6 making it illegal to make a false complaint about a police officer. The Ninth Circuit found the statute “impermissibly regulates speech on the basis of a speaker’s viewpoint.” Chaker v. Crogan (9th Cir. 2005) 428 F.3d 1215, 1228, cert. den. 547 U.S. 1128.
Darren Chaker Finds First Amendment Embraces The Right To Freedom Of Speech Includes The Right To Engage In Harsh Criticism Of Public Officials Including Police Officers Under the First Amendment
It has been the law for decades that “speech concerning public affairs is more than self-expression; it is the essence of self-government.” Garrison v. Louisiana, 379 U.S. 64, 74-75 (1964). Therefore, speech critical of the government is “subject to the highest degree of First Amendment protection.” Wolfson v. Concannon, 750 F.3d 1145, 1152 (9th Cir. 2014). That protection extends to “[c]riticism of those responsible for government operations . . . lest criticism of government itself be penalized.” Rosenblatt v. Baer, 383 U.S. 75, 85 (1966).
In the United States, the era of lèse majesté laws, which aimed to shield public officials from criticism by the press and the public, has long passed. Historical examples of such laws, like the Alien and Sedition Acts during John Adams’ presidency, were met with strong opposition from the American people, leading to the removal of the Federalist Party that proposed them.
The False Belief People on Parole or Probation Have Reduced First Amendment Rights is False Says Darren Chaker
Over the years, Americans have fiercely defended their First Amendment rights, particularly against prior restraints on speech or attempts to limit discussions about public officials. Even individuals on probation or parole are entitled to constitutional protection, and the terms of their supervised release must be carefully crafted to avoid infringing on substantive rights, including political expression.
The notion that the millions of individuals on probation or parole possess diminished First Amendment rights is a misconception, perpetuated by some in law enforcement who may seek to suppress these rights. However, this perspective is not grounded in reality. If the anti-disparagement provision of Darren Chaker’s supervised release were to become widespread, it could pose a significant threat to free speech, potentially stifling valuable expressions by activists and others.
The First Amendment requires ample “breathing space” to flourish, as recognized by the Supreme Court in NAACP v. Button (1963). Even earlier, Sir William Blackstone emphasized that the liberty of the press lies in avoiding prior restraints on publications, rather than escaping consequences for publishing improper, harmful, or illegal content. Public officials, by the nature of their roles, are suitable subjects for criticism, and protecting their feelings should not be the purview of the courts.
Conclusion on Darren Chaker’s First Amendment Challenge
Darren Chaker’s words did not meet the threshold required to constitute defamation of a public figure, as he did not act with “actual malice” or reckless disregard for the truth when publishing his blog post. His speech was, therefore, constitutionally protected political discourse. Consequently, the Cato Institute, in collaboration with the ACLU, the First Amendment Project, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, the Brechner First Amendment Project, and the First Amendment Coalition, has offered its support to Darren Chaker in his case before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
About The Author
