|
Attorney Christopher Crowley, a decorated Gulf War veteran who served in Iraq and Kuwait and was a Lieutenant Colonel in the U.S. Army Reserve for twenty years, was a 2018 candidate for Florida’s 20th Judicial State Attorney position, which is the head prosecutor over several counties. Crowley ran against the Chief Assistant State Attorney in the Republican primary. During the electoral campaign, Crowley denounced his opponent as “corrupt” and “swampy,” raised concerns about her track record as a prosecutor, her familial connections to a suspected anti-Israel group, and what role she may have played in having Crowley arrested over a small campaign donation from a raffle.
Although there is no indication that Crowley recklessly made these statements in disregard of a high awareness of any probable falsity, the Florida State Bar, which regulates attorney conduct, brought a disciplinary action against him. The Bar’s rules prohibit attorneys from making statements attacking the qualifications or integrity of a judge, public legal officer, or candidate for election to judicial or legal office without having an “objectively reasonable factual basis” for the statements—but that is not the standard established by the U.S. Supreme Court to punish defamation, and the rule’s self-serving protection to insulate a particular subclass of public officials and candidates from criticism raises the concern that “official suppression of ideas is afoot.”
The trial judge found Crowley in violation of the professional ethics rules, claiming that he did not have an objectively reasonable basis for making the statements about his political opponent during the campaign. Thereafter joining the case, The Rutherford Institute filed a Motion to Reconsider based on the U.S. Supreme Court’s subsequent decision in Counterman v. Colorado, arguing that the judge’s analysis violated First Amendment protections of free speech—which are heightened in an election context—by applying an unconstitutional standard that would enable claims through the State Bar to be weaponized to chill speech which is critical of public officials. After the trial judge refused to apply those First Amendment protections to Crowley’s case, Institute attorneys advanced the free speech arguments in Crowley’s brief before the Florida Supreme Court, which is available at www.rutherford.org.
The Rutherford Institute, a nonprofit civil liberties organization, provides legal assistance at no charge to individuals whose constitutional rights have been threatened or violated, and educates the public on a wide spectrum of issues affecting their freedoms.
This press release is also available at www.rutherford.org.
Source: https://tinyurl.com/ytpxaxnw
|
