Willian Barboza was 21 years old when he, in frustration, crossed out the name of the New York town “Liberty” and wrote “Tyranny” on a payment form for a speeding ticket he received there and , “Fuck your shitty town bitches.”
But what the town did next was truly shitty.
Willian’s payment was rejected, and he was forced to travel two hours from his home to appear at a court hearing where a judge chastised him for his language. Things only got worse when Assistant District Attorney Robert Zangla ordered Willian’s arrest, charging him with the crime of “aggravated harassment” — a misdemeanor punishable by as much as a year in prison. Willian was then handcuffed to a bench, arraigned without a lawyer, and eventually had to bail himself out for $200 after being in custody for hours.
It’s pretty ironic that such a clear violation of freedom of speech occurred in a town named Liberty, and a federal judge agreed, though he didn’t find it the least bit amusing.
Yesterday the NYCLU, which represented Willian along with lead counsel Stephen Bergstein, that a federal judge vindicated Willian by ruling that the prosecutor violated his First Amendment right to harmlessly express his opinions about the government without fearing he will be punished or arrested. The court also ruled that the Village of Liberty must stand trial on claims that it had failed to adequately train its police officers about the First Amendment.
Willian’s arrest was obviously unconstitutional. The local judge who dismissed Willian’s charges in 2013 noted that not a single legal citation was required for “this Court to determine that the language under the circumstances here, offensive as it is, is protected.”
And New York’s “aggravated harassment” statute — which made it a crime to communicate “with intent to harass, annoy, threaten or alarm another person” — was perniciously overbroad, so much so that it was struck down and then amended since Willian’s arrest. Government officials don’t have to like what you say about them — they can be “annoyed” or even “alarmed” by criticisms — but that doesn’t make those criticisms unlawful or even harmful.
In fact, criticism of government is a very good thing, as NYCLU Staff Attorney Mariko Hirose explains:
“The First Amendment protects people’s right to express their opinions about the government, and our government is better for it.”
But what’s more — yesterday’s decision agreed that the prosecutor is supposed to know better … and have a thicker skin.
Learn More About the Issues on This Page
-
Press ReleaseDec 2024
Free Speech
National Security
ACLU and Partners Urge Supreme Court to Block TikTok BanACLU and Partners Urge Supreme Court to Block TikTok Ban
WASHINGTON — Today, the American Civil Liberties Union, 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’s 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 “shutter one of America’s most popular speech platforms the day before a presidential inauguration.” “The Constitution imposes an extraordinarily high bar on this kind of mass censorship,”said Patrick Toomey, deputy director of ACLU’s National Security Project. “The 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.” The brief argues that the D.C. Circuit failed to fully address the law’s profound implications for the First Amendment rights of the 170 million Americans who use TikTok. While the lower court’s decision correctly recognized that the statute triggers First Amendment scrutiny, it barely addressed users’ First Amendment interests in speaking, sharing, and receiving information on the platform. The court also perplexingly attempted to cast the government’s ban on TikTok as a vindication of users’ 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 “propaganda.” But under the First Amendment, the government must meet a very high bar to restrict speech based on concerns about its “motivating ideology” or “perspective,” and the government has not come close to meeting that bar here. “The government should not be able to restrict speech, especially to the extent here, based on guessing about the mere possibility of uncertain future harm,” said David Greene, civil liberties director at EFF. “The Supreme Court should put the TikTok ban on hold while it considers the DC Circuit’s erroneous ruling.” Finally, the brief underscores that the government can’t impose this type of sweeping ban unless it’s 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’s invocation of “national security” as a trump card and failed to hold the government to its burden. “Restricting citizens’ 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,” said Jameel Jaffer, executive director at the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University. “It would do lasting damage to the First Amendment and our democracy if the Supreme Court let this ban go into effect even temporarily.” 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 ACLU’s State Supreme Court Initiative, alongside the ACLU 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’s privileges, under both the U.S. and Minnesota constitutions, protect Unicorn Riot from having to comply with Energy Transfer’s subpoenas.