A man on supervised release won a victory in the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals with the court holding that a judge could not end his release for violating a provision that he not “disparage or defame others on the internet.” Judge Alex Kozinski wrote that Darren Chaker’s blog post on a former police investigator was not done with actual malice, only stating that the investigator was forced out of his police department. (Cato Institute, July 20, 2016, by Ilya Shapiro and Randal John Meyer)
The ruling overturned a lower court’s decision against Chaker that many felt would smother criticism of the government on the internet. The government’s response to a amicus brief in the case showed a recognition of the importance of protecting the First Amendment: “First, the government acknowledged that a release condition against ‘harassment’ must be limited to situations where the parolee actually intends to harass someone. Second, the government recognized that harassment does not occur when a parolee merely posts a complaint about police brutality on a message board, writes a negative Yelp review, or publishes an essay criticizing the criminal justice system. Third, the government conceded that the release condition against ‘defaming’ someone else only applies to situations where there is harassment.” (Before It’s News, July 14, 2016)
Chaker was also the center of a previous First Amendment Ninth Circuit decision in 2005 that found that a California law was unconstitutional in criminalizing knowingly making a false complaint about a police officer while not punishing false reports praising an officer. (San Diego Union-Tribune, November 13, 2005, by Greg Moran)