by Jeff Davis
America has now taken one more step toward the Third World. Criticizing a judge is now an offense that gets an automatic prison sentence. Our dictator’s servants must be allowed to retain their dignity…. and arrogance.
An article from Fox News reports: “A group of free-speech advocates is rallying behind an Indiana inmate serving two years for his online rants against a judge who took away his child-custody rights during a divorce case. There’s no disputing that Daniel Brewington’s words were strong and angry–found in hundreds of emails over the course of the related, two-year divorce case. But the group is asking the state’s highest court to decide whether they indeed amounted to criminal behavior.”
Note (and this is very important): there is not even a pretense on the part of the dictatorship that this man Brewington even so much as threatened anybody. He simply openly disrespected an official who wears a judicial black robe and for that he gets two years in prison.
Fox News goes on: “Brewington was convicted in 2011 of perjury, intimidating a judge and attempting to obstruct justice — with the attorney general’s office successfully arguing that his threat was to expose the judge to ‘hatred, contempt, disgrace or ridicule.’”
I wonder if the “perjury” involved calling the judge a tyrant. If that were the case, then his current imprisonment proves his point. It seems as though criticizing a public official is now considered to be a threat. If Mr. Brewington were simply listing outrageous actions by the judge, that should be completely protected by the First Amendment. If the judge is arguing that listing his actions opens him up to possible mob violence, then maybe that judge has been acting like a tyrant, and he has no right to silence his victim.
The article notes “However, the group recently filed an amicus brief with the state Supreme Court arguing an appeals court decision in January upholding the felony intimidation charge threatens constitutionally protected speech about public officials.”
“The court will decide after the March 11 filing deadline on whether to take up the case. The appeals court argued that some of Brewington’s claims against Judge James D. Humphrey were false. It also argued their truthfulness were not necessarily relevant to prosecution because the harm, which in this case was striking fear in the victim, occurred ‘whether the publicized conduct is true or false,’ according to Reason magazine.”
So truth is now no longer a defense. You can tell a society is lapsing into tyranny when speaking the truth is no longer protected. The more I read about this case, the more I trust Mr. Brewington and the more I distrust anything coming from Judge Humphrey. Similar rulings that the truth is no defense have been used against people who question the Holocaust in certain countries where the Zionists have too much power.
The article continues “The group is led by University of California Los Angeles law professor Eugene Volokh and includes conservative lawyer James Bopp, a former executive director of the Indiana Civil Liberties Union, the Indiana Association of Scholars, The Indianapolis Star and the James Madison Center for Free Speech. Volokh wrote in the brief that the appeals court decision endangers the free speech rights of journalists, policy advocates, politicians and ordinary citizens.”
“In his rants, Brewington called the judge a ‘child abuser’ and ‘corrupt’ and accused him of unethical or illegal behavior. He argued that Humphrey taking away his children amounted to child abuse.”
“Humphrey said he could not comment on the case. But court records purportedly show he felt threatened enough to get a gun out of storage, install a home-security system and get protection from a police detail.”
“The Star said the group is not interested in the ‘minutia’ of the 2007 divorce case and custody fight. It is instead focused on a broader issue: A belief that Indiana’s intimidation law — particularly as interpreted by the Court of Appeals in Brewington’s case — violates the First Amendment. Brewington’s attorney Michael K. Sutherlin said his client may not have had the rhetorical skill of Thomas Paine but like 18th-century pamphleteers, he used a popular forum of expression in his time to complain about unfair treatment by an oppressive system.”
The “minutia of the 2007 divorce case” is extremely relevant in determining whether Judge Humphrey is one of many lunatic judges, who impose ridiculous anti-male judgments, ignoring what’s best for the children in a divorce. Denying a father the right to see his children, except in the most extreme circumstances, is child abuse.
What we have here is a judge whining that an American citizen is saying bad things about him. Well, if the bad things are true, and truth still matters, maybe that judge should be kicked out of his position. Whenever a judge or politician starts thinking that he’s got a job for life, it’s then that tyranny begins to set in. __________________