In the land of the free, people still get arrested for speaking out about what they believe in.
A little over a year ago, I was arrested and detained for 10 hours in New York City because I was handing out leaflets advocating jury nullification. I was arrested under a state law that makes it a crime to talk about judicial proceedings within 200 feet of a courthouse. I filed a First Amendment lawsuit because political speech shouldn鈥檛 be a crime, no matter where it takes place.
Jury nullification is a power that the jury has to acquit a defendant, despite the law, if they believe a law to be unjust. It has been used for centuries to squash government overreach. In the 1800s, juries refused to convict those who helped African-Americans escape from slavery. Juries also refused to convict those who had been charged with violating alcohol prohibition laws during the 1930s.
In recent years, juries have used the power of jury nullification to acquit people facing petty drug charges, which disproportionately affect people of color. Juries have repeatedly refused to convict those who have been charged with breaking unjust laws.
For a few years now, I have been educating people about jury nullification by handing out leaflets in front of courthouses in Connecticut and Massachusetts. I have been questioned by prosecutors and federal agents, chased off of public property, surrounded by a host of officers, and threatened with arrest. Still, New York City was different.
On a brisk December morning in 2017, I stood on a public sidewalk in front of the Bronx Hall of Justice. I decided to protest New York鈥檚 unjust laws by handing out fliers informing people of their power to nullify unjust laws. After several minutes, two court officers approached me and said that I would need to move 200 feet away from the courthouse to continue handing out fliers.
When I refused to move, the court officers arrested me, searched me, and seized my property. I was ultimately detained for 10 hours that day, simply for exercising my First Amendment right to speak. They declined to prosecute me, but only because the arresting officer failed to measure whether I was standing within 200 feet of the courthouse at the time of my arrest. Otherwise, who knows what could have happened.
I brought this case because the government has no business criminalizing political speech just because it happens outside a courthouse. Courthouses are important public symbols, closely tied to the administration of justice. They are frequently important places for political speech on a wide range of issues, including police brutality, immigrants' rights, and criminal justice reform.
Although it鈥檚 against the law to intentionally manipulate a juror鈥檚 vote in a specific case, speech informing people about the concept of jury nullification is entitled to the same constitutional protection as any other speech about our criminal justice system. Whatever you may think about jury nullification, it shouldn鈥檛 be a secret, and talking about it in public shouldn鈥檛 be a crime.
We鈥檒l see you in court, New York.
Learn More 老澳门开奖结果 the Issues on This Page
-
Press ReleaseDec 2024
Free Speech
National Security
老澳门开奖结果 and Partners Urge Supreme Court to Block TikTok Ban老澳门开奖结果 and Partners Urge Supreme Court to Block TikTok Ban
WASHINGTON 鈥� Today, the 老澳门开奖结果, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), and the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University filed an amicus brief urging the Supreme Court to block the enforcement of a law that would effectively ban people in America from using TikTok as soon as January 19, 2025. Earlier this month, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit rejected TikTok鈥檚 challenge to the law. TikTok has asked the Supreme Court for a temporary injunction to prevent the app from being banned while the court considers whether to take the case, saying that unless the justices intervene, the law will 鈥渟hutter one of America鈥檚 most popular speech platforms the day before a presidential inauguration.鈥� 鈥淭he Constitution imposes an extraordinarily high bar on this kind of mass censorship,鈥漵aid Patrick Toomey, deputy director of 老澳门开奖结果鈥檚 National Security Project. 鈥淭he Supreme Court should take up this important case and protect the rights of millions of Americans to freely express themselves and engage with others around the world.鈥� The brief argues that the D.C. Circuit failed to fully address the law鈥檚 profound implications for the First Amendment rights of the 170 million Americans who use TikTok. While the lower court鈥檚 decision correctly recognized that the statute triggers First Amendment scrutiny, it barely addressed users鈥� First Amendment interests in speaking, sharing, and receiving information on the platform. The court also perplexingly attempted to cast the government鈥檚 ban on TikTok as a vindication of users鈥� First Amendment rights, which it is not. The rights groups also explain that the law was intended to suppress certain content and viewpoints that many legislators believe could be amplified on TikTok, including the risk of foreign 鈥減ropaganda.鈥� But under the First Amendment, the government must meet a very high bar to restrict speech based on concerns about its 鈥渕otivating ideology鈥� or 鈥減erspective,鈥� and the government has not come close to meeting that bar here. 鈥淭he government should not be able to restrict speech, especially to the extent here, based on guessing about the mere possibility of uncertain future harm,鈥� said David Greene, civil liberties director at EFF. 鈥淭he Supreme Court should put the TikTok ban on hold while it considers the DC Circuit鈥檚 erroneous ruling.鈥� Finally, the brief underscores that the government can鈥檛 impose this type of sweeping ban unless it鈥檚 necessary to prevent extremely serious and imminent harm to national security. But the government has not provided evidence of impending harm, or evidence that banning TikTok is the only available way to address its concerns. As the brief explains, the D.C. Circuit improperly treated the government鈥檚 invocation of 鈥渘ational security鈥� as a trump card and failed to hold the government to its burden. 鈥淩estricting citizens鈥� access to foreign media is a practice that has long been associated with repressive regimes, and we should be very wary of letting the practice take root here,鈥� said Jameel Jaffer, executive director at the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University. 鈥淚t would do lasting damage to the First Amendment and our democracy if the Supreme Court let this ban go into effect even temporarily.鈥� You can find the brief online here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24A587/335380/20241217144322392_24A587%20TikTok%20v%20Garland%20Amicus%20Brief%20pdfa.pdf -
MississippiJul 2024
Free Speech
Privacy & Technology
NetChoice v. FitchNetChoice v. Fitch
Whether a law that mandates age verification for all users of social media services violates the First Amendment. -
News & CommentaryDec 2024
Free Speech
Can you define pornography? Neither can the government.Can you define pornography? Neither can the government.
We break down the absurd-but-true history of trying to censor sexual speech under the guise of "keeping kids safe." -
Minnesota Supreme CourtNov 2024
Free Speech
Energy Transfer LP v. Greenpeace International, Unicorn RiotEnergy Transfer LP v. Greenpeace International, Unicorn Riot
This case in the Minnesota Supreme Court asks whether the MFFIA's protections apply to newsgatherers even if they are alleged to have engaged in trespassing while newsgathering. The 老澳门开奖结果鈥檚 State Supreme Court Initiative, alongside the 老澳门开奖结果 of Minnesota and law firm Biersdorf & Associations, filed a brief representing Unicorn Riot, a media organization that covered protests of the Dakota Access Pipeline. The brief argues that MFFIA and constitutional reporter鈥檚 privileges, under both the U.S. and Minnesota constitutions, protect Unicorn Riot from having to comply with Energy Transfer鈥檚 subpoenas.