Police Officer's Hanging Up on Caller Isn't a First Amendment Violation

"[T]he First Amendment does not require government actors to listen to citizens' speech or guarantee the right to communicate one's views to a government audience for any length of time that the speaker desires," and this applies equally "when the audience is a police officer." So holds last week's decision (quite correctly) in Sgaggio v. Diaz, by Chief Judge Philip Brimmer (D. Colo.).

Comments

[Kazinski]

I hope there were sanctions against the lawyer that filed the case.

[Davy C]

Page 4 of the ruling mentions that he was pro se.

[David Nieporent]

And he's a serial plaintiff of equally dubious claims.

[David Welker]

Duh.

[David Welker]

Well, I am going to take that back. Not as obvious.

At a city council meeting, I think there would be a first amendment problem if they gave everyone 5 minutes, but cut the microphone off for anyone who criticized them.

I could see a first amendment problem with the police refusing to take or process police reports or refusing to listen to a description of a crime because they dislike the person. A right to petition for the redress of grievances does imply the right to be heard, to some degree.

Like if the government gave people an email address that was never checked in order to petition for redress of grievances, I could see a first amendment problem.

[Davy C]

In this case, if you read what happened, it really is obvious, though. It wasn't even that he called the police department. The officer was in his backyard telling his wife to move their marijuana plants; his wife called *him*, and she put it on speaker so he could talk to the officer.

[David Welker]

I am sure you are correct. And obviously, keywords in this decision are for "any length of time that the speaker desires."

Also, it really is a "duh" decision in the sense that of course you can't force a government official to listen to you for forever and ever and ever and on and on and on.

[Davy C]

Also, it really is a “duh” decision in the sense that of course you can’t force a government official to listen to you for forever and ever and ever and on and on and on.

Yeah, but presumably he didn't want to do this literally forever. The decision doesn't really say how long he was on the phone. (It says "several exchanges" which to me means both parties spoke more than twice.) For all we know it was less than five minutes.

[Roger S]

The First Amendment says we have a right "to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." How are we supposed to do that, if they hang up on our calls?

[Drewski]

It doesn't say there's a right to petition any government employee, at any time, for any length of time.

[Ed Grinberg]

In the last open-thread, I linked to a Washington Post article breathlessly reporting a "successful" police raid on a "Nazi" printing press in Argentina, and commented on it using the quote "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
Nige responded:

‘I will make a show of fiercely protecting your inalienable rights to proclaim an ideology that is genocidal and oppressive but I will affect indifference and incomprehension when it comes to actively opposing your ideology, which I mildly disapprove of.’

He's being somewhat obscure, but I'm pretty sure he's talking about Antifa -- they "actively oppose" the Nazi / fascist ideology. Well, Nige, I got news for you: The only legitimate way to "oppose" an ideology is to publish your own books, refuting its postulates, not smash its printing presses or beat up its adherents. I'll stick with Voltaire.

Nige & Co.'s modus operandi:
step 1: declare their opponents' ideology "genocidal and oppressive"
step 2: proceed to "actively oppose" them (by oppressing the crap out of them, rounding them up, putting them in camps, etc.)
Works every time!

[Ed Grinberg]

I meant to post this in the Monday open-thread. Don't ask how it ended up here. I've since successfully made this same comment there. Sorry for the double-post.

[oliverantony]

A police officer hanging up on a caller generally doesn't constitute a First Amendment violation. The First Amendment protects free speech from government censorship, but it doesn't require government employees to listen indefinitely. However, if an officer discriminates against certain callers based on their speech content, it could raise legal concerns.
Website: https://www.luxurysportcarsdubai.com/