News Dud
07-17-2006, 11:49 PM
Sheriff Loses Appeal Over Web Postings at LEOAFFAIRS.COM
By THOMAS W. KRAUSE
Tampa Tribune
July 2006
TAMPA - An appeals court has provided the final denial of the attempt by the Hillsborough County Sheriff's Office to find the names of deputies who posted anonymous, often critical, messages at LEOAFFAIRS.COM.
The 2nd District Court of Appeal did not provide a reason for the denial, so it is unlikely the case can move to a higher court.
"That means they could find absolutely no error with either the conclusions reached by the lower court or any of the reasoning," said Luke Lirot, the attorney for leoaffairs.com, a privately run sounding board for law enforcement officers who want to discuss their departments.
Previous judges ruled that anonymous speech, including posts on a Web site, is protected by the Constitution.
Lirot said deputies have as much right as anyone to call into question the actions of the government. If the deputies are acting as whistleblowers by airing problems with government policy, their speech and identities are even more protected, he said.
"Simply because you participate in the field of law enforcement doesn't mean you have to leave your constitutional rights at the door," Lirot said.
But Thea Clark, a sheriff's office attorney, said the rules are different for deputies.
Clark said Sheriff David Gee was not concerned with criticism of his policies.
The issue arose last year, when the sheriff's office argued that it had a compelling need to get the names of anonymous deputies who posted messages critical of the investigation of Steven and Marlene Aisenberg's missing baby. Those who posted the messages, the sheriff argued, might have critical information about the case.
Circuit Judge William Levens ruled that Web site owners did not have to provide information about who posted the messages because anonymous speech is protected by the First Amendment.
The sheriff's office also tried to secure the names through a lawsuit filed against several "John Doe and Jane Doe" deputies.
The lawsuit claimed the deputies broke department policy.
In that case, Crenshaw ruled that free-speech rights protect those who posted the messages. The article is here (http://www.tbo.com/news/metro/MGBCEVAFNPE.html). :!:
By THOMAS W. KRAUSE
Tampa Tribune
July 2006
TAMPA - An appeals court has provided the final denial of the attempt by the Hillsborough County Sheriff's Office to find the names of deputies who posted anonymous, often critical, messages at LEOAFFAIRS.COM.
The 2nd District Court of Appeal did not provide a reason for the denial, so it is unlikely the case can move to a higher court.
"That means they could find absolutely no error with either the conclusions reached by the lower court or any of the reasoning," said Luke Lirot, the attorney for leoaffairs.com, a privately run sounding board for law enforcement officers who want to discuss their departments.
Previous judges ruled that anonymous speech, including posts on a Web site, is protected by the Constitution.
Lirot said deputies have as much right as anyone to call into question the actions of the government. If the deputies are acting as whistleblowers by airing problems with government policy, their speech and identities are even more protected, he said.
"Simply because you participate in the field of law enforcement doesn't mean you have to leave your constitutional rights at the door," Lirot said.
But Thea Clark, a sheriff's office attorney, said the rules are different for deputies.
Clark said Sheriff David Gee was not concerned with criticism of his policies.
The issue arose last year, when the sheriff's office argued that it had a compelling need to get the names of anonymous deputies who posted messages critical of the investigation of Steven and Marlene Aisenberg's missing baby. Those who posted the messages, the sheriff argued, might have critical information about the case.
Circuit Judge William Levens ruled that Web site owners did not have to provide information about who posted the messages because anonymous speech is protected by the First Amendment.
The sheriff's office also tried to secure the names through a lawsuit filed against several "John Doe and Jane Doe" deputies.
The lawsuit claimed the deputies broke department policy.
In that case, Crenshaw ruled that free-speech rights protect those who posted the messages. The article is here (http://www.tbo.com/news/metro/MGBCEVAFNPE.html). :!: