ACLU Files First Amendment Challenge to Criminal Defamation Law
Lawsuit Filed on Behalf of Man Arrested For Criticizing Cops
CONCORD, N.H. — The American Civil Liberties Union and the ACLU of New Hampshire today filed a federal lawsuit challenging New Hampshire’s criminal defamation law, which makes it a misdemeanor to intentionally and falsely disparage another person. The lawsuit was filed on behalf of Robert Frese, a resident of Exeter who has twice been arrested and charged with criminal defamation under the law.
Frese’s second arrest under the law happened in May, after he posted comments to a Seacoast Online article about a retiring police officer, accusing the officer of misconduct. He also wrote that Exeter Police Chief William Shupe “covered up for this dirty cop.” A few weeks later, the Exeter police filed a criminal complaint against Frese. The police complaint stated Frese “purposely communicated on a public website, in writing, information which he knows to be false and knows will tend to expose another person to public contempt, by posting that Chief Shupe covered up for a dirty cop.” The police ultimately dropped the charges.
“I never thought that speaking my mind would get me arrested,” Frese said. “America is the best country in the world because we have the right to free speech. Never in a million years would I think that what happened to me would happen in this country — it is utterly anti-American.”
The lawsuit argues that New Hampshire’s criminal libel law — and laws like it across the nation — violate the First Amendment, give the public far too little guidance on what may constitute a crime, and give law enforcement far too much discretion in deciding whom to prosecute. The complaint also states that such laws are unnecessary when civil lawsuits are fully capable of addressing the harms caused by defamation.
“Our client went to the internet to voice his grievances about the police only to be arrested by the police,” said Gilles Bissonnette, legal director at the ACLU of New Hampshire. “That is absurd, and a textbook example of the use and abuse of criminal defamation laws. Law enforcement should not have the power to crack down on free speech, especially when that speech is critical of law enforcement.”
The Supreme Court imposed significant restrictions on criminal defamation laws in the 1960s, and a few justices signaled that criminal defamation should be abolished entirely. The court recognized the “profound national commitment to the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open, and that it may well include vehement, caustic, and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks on government and public officials.”
Despite this, the laws remain on the books in 25 states and the U.S. Virgin Islands. Penalties can range from $500 to $10,000 and/or 10 years in jail for certain offenses. Criminal convictions also carry collateral penalties, including potential immigration consequences and ineligibility for housing and employment opportunities.
“Criminal defamation is a relic from the days of the Star Chamber and the Sedition Act,” added Brian Hauss, staff attorney with the ACLU’s Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project. “These laws have no place in 21st-century American democracy. It’s time we toss such laws into the dustbin of history, where they belong.”
Criminal defamation laws are disproportionately used against people who criticize public officials or government employees. One study identified 23 criminal defamation prosecutions or threatened prosecutions for the period from 1990–2002, 12 of which were deemed “political” and 20 of which involved public figures or issues of public controversy. Examples include a Kansas newspaper editor and publisher for suggesting in a local paper that the county mayor lives in another county and a Kansas man with criminal defamation after he posted a yard sign criticizing his local government’s inaction on a water drainage problem.
Prosecutions under criminal defamation laws are also increasing with the rise of online speech. The ACLU argues that if the trend continues, criminal defamation laws could become regular tools for policing online discourse.
The complaint can be found here: /legal-document/frese-v-macdonald-complaint.
A blog post by Hauss on today’s filing can be found here: /blog/free-speech/internet-speech/new-hampshire-police-arrested-man-being-mean-them-internet.
A map of criminal libel laws throughout the United States is available here: /issues/free-speech/criminal-defamation
Free Speech
Frese v. Formella – Challenge to New Hampshire Criminal Defamation Law
Free Speech
Frese v. Formella – Challenge to New Hampshire Criminal Defamation Law
Learn More About the Issues in This Press Release
-
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.