Dear Friend,

Imagine running for public office, speaking your mind about your opponent, and then being hauled before a government disciplinary board because your criticism was deemed too harsh.
 
—Not because you committed fraud.
—Not because you lied under oath.
—Not because you broke the law.
 
But because the government decided your political speech crossed the line.
 
That is the dangerous precedent rejected by the Florida Supreme Court in response to The Rutherford Institute’s advocacy in The Florida Bar v. Crowley.
 
Christopher Crowley, a decorated Gulf War veteran, attorney and former candidate for Florida State Attorney, was disciplined by the Florida Bar after criticizing his political opponent during an election campaign.
 
The government argued that his statements violated professional ethics rules governing lawyers.
 
But that’s not how the First Amendment works.
 
Political speech—especially speech during an election—is entitled to the highest level of constitutional protection because voters cannot make informed decisions unless they are free to hear candidates debate one another openly, vigorously and yes, sometimes harshly.

Thankfully, the Florida Supreme Court unanimously rejected the Bar’s attempt to punish Crowley for his campaign speech.
 
Quoting James Madison, the Court reminded us that in our constitutional system, “the censorial power is in the people over the Government, and not in the Government over the people.”
 
In other words, it is the people who judge public officials—not government officials who decide what the people are allowed to hear.
 
That principle protects all of us.
 
If government licensing boards can punish attorneys for criticizing political opponents, what stops other government agencies from disciplining doctors, teachers, journalists, business owners or anyone else whose livelihood depends on government approval?
 
The First Amendment exists precisely because government cannot be trusted to decide which political opinions are acceptable.
 
The answer to speech we disagree with has never been government censorship.
 
The answer is more speech.
 
The Rutherford Institute joined Crowley’s defense because constitutional rights cannot depend on whether government officials approve of what someone says.
 
Freedom of speech means protecting speech that is controversial, unpopular and sharply critical of those in power.
 
Otherwise, it isn’t freedom at all.
 
Read more about this important First Amendment victory and why it matters for every American who values the freedom to speak truth to power: https://tinyurl.com/5yb6m23j

For freedom,
 
John W. Whitehead
Constitutional Attorney, President 
The Rutherford Institute

P.S. Every generation faces new attempts to limit political speech in the name of civility, professionalism or public order. But the First Amendment was written to protect robust debate—not government-approved opinions.
 
Thank you for helping The Rutherford Institute defend the constitutional freedoms that keep government accountable to the people.

• Merit Brief
• Motion to Reconsider
• Reply Brief: Florida Supreme Court 
• Opinion: Florida Supreme Court 

To donate via PayPal, please click below: