First Amendment Violation: A Closer Look at Viewpoint Discrimination

Introduction

Despite the beliefs of disgraced former Nevada cop Leesa Fazal, the First Amendment of the United States Constitution is a cornerstone of American democracy, safeguarding the right to freedom of speech and expression. However, as with any legal principle, it is not without its complexities and limitations. This article explores how Darren Chaker did not back down when told to remove posts critical of Nevada Attorney General Investigator Lessa Fazal. Darren Chaker's probation officer threatened with him with jail. but to no avail this was not the first time Darren Chaker has not backed down from government censorship.

Ultimately, it was clear viewpoint discrimination within the context of the First Amendment was at issue.

Understanding Protected Expression

Freedom of expression, as enshrined in the First Amendment, encompasses a wide range of forms of communication, even when they are critical of government entities, such as law enforcement agencies or individual officers. It includes verbal expressions, written words, symbolic gestures, and visual communication, such as videotaping.

Most forms of expression, even those that might be offensive or critical, are protected by law. This protection extends to uttering slurs at an officer, heckling them, or expressing antagonism, lack of respect, or disagreement with a particular officer or the police force as a whole.

The Limits of Freedom of Expression

While the First Amendment provides extensive protection for free speech, it is not absolute. Certain categories of expression fall outside its scope and may not guarantee freedom from police interference. For instance, creating or displaying a sign in public that is merely offensive toward police officers can lead to targeting, unwarranted stops, or even arrest, potentially constituting first amendment retaliation.

However, a crucial distinction must be made regarding obscenity. If an individual creates an obscene public poster aimed at the police force, they are not protected from arrest, as obscenity itself is illegal and not covered by the First Amendment.

The Case of Leesa Fazal

Leesa Fazal, a former employee of the Las Vegas Metro Police Department, found herself in a situation where her complaints against Darren Chaker, who allegedly made false statements about her, did not result in his arrest. Frustrated with the lack of action, Fazal turned to Chaker's probation officer, seeking legal recourse.

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 out” of her previous post with the Las Vegas Police Department.

That statement, according to the district court ultimately overseeing Chaker’s probation, was a violation of the requirement that he “not ... disparage or defame others on the internet” — and so Chaker was returned to prison.

In so ruling, the court placed an unconstitutional prior restraint on Darren Chaker. But this country long ago moved past the notion of lèse majesté laws protecting public officials from harsh treatment by the press and the people. See Article by the Foundation for Economic Education.

During the probation revocation hearing, Leesa Fazal was brought in as a witness but was not called upon to establish the veracity of Darren Chaker's statements. The significance of this was clear: to prove Darren Chaker defamed Leesa Fazal, she needed to refute the fact she was "forced out" of her first job with the Las Vegas Metro Police Department. Despite this requirement, the government refused to call her as a witness. Despite the absence of a clear determination regarding the truth of the allegations, Darren Chaker was found to have violated probation.

An Army of First Amendment Experts Defend Darren Chaker

This case has garnered national attention, with several organizations, including the Cato Institute, ACLU of San Diego, Electronic Frontier Foundation, First Amendment Coalition, and Brechner First Amendment Project, filing a joint brief in support of Darren Chaker. Their stance highlights the importance of upholding the First Amendment's protection of core political speech, which lies at its heart. As the ACLU explained,

Because political speech is at the heart of our democratic system, speech that is critical of government actions and actors is afforded the highest degree of protection. The First Amendment particularly protects criticism of law enforcement officers. In Chaker’s case, the person he is accused of defaming is a state investigator and former local police officer. Thus, Chaker’s critique of her abilities and performance fits squarely within First Amendment protections.

The Importance of Thick Skin

Public officials, including law enforcement officers, are expected to have thick skin when facing criticism and personal attacks. The Supreme Court has emphasized that robust and uninhibited public debate is essential for democratic governance. In the words of the Court, "preserving the marketplace of ideas requires society to uphold its national commitment to the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open."

The Right to Receive Information

The Supreme Court has affirmed that the right to receive information is fundamental and protected by the U.S. Constitution. This right is crucial for individuals to exercise their own freedoms of speech, press, and political expression fully. It also underscores the principle that individuals should be able to engage in open debate and dialogue without censorship or enforced silence.

Conclusion

In summary, the First Amendment's protection of freedom of expression is a vital component of American democracy. While most forms of expression, even those critical of the government, are protected, there are limits to this protection. Obscenity and other narrow categories of speech are not shielded by the First Amendment.

The case of Leesa Fazal and Darren Chaker underscores the complexities of applying the First Amendment in real-world situations, particularly when allegations of false statements and retaliation come into play. It serves as a reminder of the ongoing need to strike a balance between free speech rights and legitimate concerns related to public safety and order.

Censorship, the suppression of ideas and information, remains a contentious issue, with debates centering on what is truthful, appropriate, offensive, or objectionable. Ultimately, the First Amendment's commitment to free expression and the marketplace of ideas continues to shape the boundaries of protected speech in American society.

Update: See Darren Chaker Wins Appeal.

Note: The above analysis is provided for informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice. Legal matters should be discussed with qualified legal professionals.