On The Front Lines
Rutherford Institute Defends Right of Political Speech and Right of Citizens to Criticize Candidates and Keep Voters Informed
TALLAHASSEE, Fl. — Pointing out that free debate about public affairs is the essence of self-government and at the heart of the First Amendment’s protections, The Rutherford Institute has come to the defense of an attorney who was charged by the State Bar for criticizing his opponent during an electoral campaign for a state prosecutor position.
In calling on the Florida Supreme Court to safeguard speech which is critical of public officials and keeps voters informed about significant concerns, The Rutherford Institute is challenging the disciplinary action brought against Christopher Crowley by the State Bar, which Institute attorneys warn could chill political speech.
“No matter what their political persuasion might be, every American has a First Amendment right to criticize government programs or policies which they might disagree with,” 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 or hurting someone’s feelings, protect government officials from criticism, penalize hateful ideas, combat prejudice and intolerance, and the like.”
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.
Case History
November 09, 2023 • Decorated Gulf War Veteran Is Punished for Exercising His Right to Political Free Speech
