After police refused to respond to his calls for assistance, a Texas man gave police a peaceful piece of his mind, but it landed him in jail.
Warning that the government must not be given the power to criminalize speech it deems distasteful or annoying, The Rutherford Institute has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to stop the prosecution of a Texas man who faces up to one year in jail and a $4000 fine for sending emails to police criticizing them for failing to respond to his requests for assistance.
In an
amicus brief filed with the Supreme Court, Rutherford Institute attorneys argue that the prosecution of Scott Ogle for sending complaints to a sheriff's office, including one email stating that officials were "pissing" on the Constitution, violates the First Amendment's safeguards for freedom of speech and the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Moreover, Institute attorneys argue that the Texas law under which Ogle was charged,
which makes it a crime to send "annoying," "alarming" or "harassing" electronic messages, is so overbroad that it could be used to punish a negative review of a restaurant posted online or caustic Facebook posts.
"It was Justice William O. Douglas who affirmed the right of Americans to speak softly or angrily to government officials, even if our words challenge and annoy.
We need not stay docile and quiet, nor must we bow submissively to authority and speak with awe and reverence to those who represent us. That is the genius of the First Amendment," said constitutional attorney John W. Whitehead, president of The Rutherford Institute and author of
Battlefield America: The War on the American People.
"Nowhere in the First Amendment does it permit the government to limit speech in order to avoid causing offense, hurting someone's feelings, safeguarding government secrets, protecting government officials, insulating judges from undue influence, discouraging bullying, penalizing hateful ideas and actions, eliminating terrorism, combatting prejudice and intolerance, and the like."In 2016, a frustrated Scott Ogle emailed the Hays County Sheriff's Office over their alleged inattention to his requests for help. In his emails, Ogle accused one officer of "[being] your typical arrogant, condescending, belligerent self who chooses to look the other way."
Another email stated "[y]ou have a Constitution to uphold, son, you're pissing on it" and referred to a deputy as a "little bitch" and a "little state weasel." Based on these emails, Ogle was charged with a crime under a provision of Texas' Penal Code for making "repeated electronic messages in a manner reasonably likely to harass, annoy, alarm, abuse, torment, embarrass, or offend another."
The law also requires that the messages be sent with the same intent. A violation of this statute is punishable by up to one year in jail and a $4000 fine. Prior to trial,
Ogle's lawyer argued that the statute violates the First Amendment - which affirms the rights to freedom of speech and to petition the government for a redress of grievances - because it criminalizes a substantial amount of constitutionally-protected speech.However, both the state trial and appellate courts rejected Ogle's constitutional defense. In asking the U.S. Supreme Court to review Ogle's case and strike down the Texas statute,
The Rutherford Institute argues that even if Ogle's emails were in bad taste, the government must not have the power to judge and punish speech because of its judgment that the speech is rude.Pointing out that statutes similar to the one being applied to Ogle have been held unconstitutional by other state and federal courts, Institute attorneys have also urged the Supreme Court to resolve the conflict between those rulings and the ruling in Ogle's case.
Affiliate attorney Chris Moriarty assisted The Rutherford Institute in presenting its arguments.
The Rutherford Institute, a nonprofit civil liberties organization, provides legal assistance at no charge to individuals whose constitutional rights have been threatened or violated.
Reader Comments
Whenever technology provides an additional method of dissemination, from books to emails, governments have been at the forefront in ensuring those technologies are controlled and restricted. We have never been allowed "free speech" beyond the spoken word
It could range from assault and battery to the neighbors cat walked across my lawn.
While the penalties for sending an email calling an officer a bitch might seem over the top, for all we know this guy has been wasting thousands of dollars and many man hours calling 911 every time the neighbor lady farted.
It seems to me the sheriff's office and county prosecutor were fed up and used whatever statute they could dig up to get this guy to cool his jets.
It is a poor reflection of the state of our nation when laws are routinely enacted (and enforced) that are prima facie contradictory to the black-letter text of the Constitution. The Constitution, when invoked at all, seems to be used as more of a cudgel to keep the people in line rather than a limiter of gov't powers it was originally intended to be.
R.C.
I's a human rights advocate attorney representing institutional rape victims from churches, State mental hospitals, jails, and prisons.
After filing a civil lawsuit, I sent a deposition notice to investigating office Lt. Skrocki on Dec. 1, 2016 to share her findings, and conclusions, associated with her decision to not investigate the increasingly violent threats from a religious cult the FBI classified as a "dangerous religious sect" decades ago, but have consciously disregarded reports from "voiceless victims".
The "harassment" probable cause affidavits were filed eight days later.
Prior Communications[Link]
Probable Cause Affidavit Lt. Skrocki [Link]
Probable Cause Affidavit Dep. Paris [Link]
Iglesia La Luz Del Mundo FBI "sensitive" classified "Dangerous Religious Sect" "due to the DANGER to law enforcement, and their staff". That same "danger" is magnified toward sexual molestation victim rights advocate attorneys who are targeted by both church and State authorities bent on not exposing our governments' decades of refusing to regulate those who violate children.
"Efficiency rates" of police closing cases leave collateral damaged victims, who don't even get called back when law enforcement is called, that should become a public scandal if ever revealed.
Instead, shooting the messengers is easier than solving our Nation's Finest ridiculing America's most vulnerable whose "freedom of religion" leaves ministers "free from regulation" while victim advocates are gaslighted as targets of shame.