A landmark first amendment case in California has reinforced constitutional protections for individuals under supervised release. The state's Fourth District Court of Appeal ruled against an anti-disparagement provision that prevented probationer Darren Chaker from criticizing public officials. This decision, particularly significant for probationers and parolees, establishes that constitutional rights remain protected even during supervision. Consequently, the court determined that overly broad speech restrictions violate fundamental freedoms. This ruling carries profound implications for thousands under supervised release conditions and protects the right to engage in political discourse and criticize government officials.
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a lower court decision that sent Darren Chaker back to prison for criticizing a government official online. Judge Alex Kozinski authored the court's opinion in July 2016, finding that Chaker's supervised release conditions violated First Amendment protections. The two-page ruling established that probationers retain constitutional rights to engage in political speech.
Chaker maintained a personal blog during his supervised release period. On this platform, he published a statement about Leesa Fazal, an investigator with the Nevada Attorney General's Office. Specifically, he wrote that Fazal had been "forced out" of her previous position with the Las Vegas Metro Police Department. This single statement triggered a series of events that challenged core First Amendment principles.
Fazal discovered the blog post and felt it insulted her professional credibility. She reported the post to her supervisor at the Attorney General's Office, then escalated her complaint to the FBI and the Las Vegas Metro Police Department. All three law enforcement agencies reviewed the matter and declined to arrest Chaker. Undeterred, Fazal contacted Chaker's federal probation officer, who subsequently had him jailed pending a hearing.
The probation officer never verified whether Chaker's blog comments were truthful. During the hearing, the government failed to call Fazal as a witness despite her presence in court. Rather than requiring the government to prove Chaker posted false information, the court shifted the burden of proof. When Chaker testified he obtained the information from other blogs, the court dismissed his defense. The district court found he violated supervised release conditions prohibiting him from making harassing or defamatory statements and ordered him to serve six months in a halfway house.
The Ninth Circuit concluded that Chaker's blog post qualified as neither harassment nor defamation. The appellate court found the government failed to establish essential elements required before sanctioning speech about public officials. Judge Kozinski's opinion emphasized that terms of supervised release must be narrowly drawn to avoid infringing substantive rights.
The court rejected the lower court's novel approach that combined miscellaneous defamation and harassment elements without requiring the government to prove constitutionally mandated standards. For speech about public officials, the government must demonstrate that the speaker acted with actual malice, meaning knowledge that the statement was false or reckless disregard for its truth. The court found no evidence that Chaker possessed such malice when publishing his statement about Fazal's departure from the police department.
The district court's ruling placed an unconstitutional prior restraint on Chaker's speech. Prior restraint prohibits expression before it occurs and carries a heavy presumption against constitutional validity. Courts must find prior restraints justified by compelling state interests to protect against serious harm threats.
Anti-disparagement provisions in supervised release conditions function as prior restraints by deterring protected political commentary before publication. The supervised release condition requiring Chaker not to "disparage or defame others on the internet" was insufficiently narrow. Such vague restrictions force individuals to guess which government leaders remain "touchable" by spoken and written words.
The Supreme Court established in NAACP v. Button that the First Amendment requires appropriate "breathing space" to thrive. Probation conditions cannot serve as proxy mechanisms to punish protected critique of government officials. Political speech about public officials' qualifications and performance receives the highest level of First Amendment protection, regardless of the speaker's supervised release status.
Protect your record,
protect your future
Chaker served probation for a white collar crime conviction that stemmed from actions by his bankruptcy attorney. The attorney filed a petition without Chaker's knowledge or consent. An expert report concluded that the attorney "did not exercise a reasonable standard of care" and characterized the conduct as "fraudulent". During trial, the jury convicted Chaker on only a single charge while finding him not guilty on all other counts. After serving several months in minimum security and home confinement, he began his probation term.
The content Chaker published related to an incident at a San Diego courthouse. Leesa Fazal, who worked as an investigator with the Nevada Attorney General's Office, brought her gun into the courtroom. Police detained Fazal after discovering the weapon and took her to a back room with instructions not to leave. Fazal did not hold peace officer status in California, which meant she appeared to have violated state law. Chaker filmed the incident on video.
Subsequently, Chaker wrote on his blog that Fazal "was forced out of the Las Vegas Metro Police Department". The blog post addressed matters of public importance regarding law enforcement conduct and professional credentials. Given that the post discussed a government investigator's professional history and an apparent legal violation, the content fell within traditional political speech protections.
The terms of Chaker's supervised release contained specific language restricting online activity. The relevant condition stated that he "may not stalk and/or harass other individuals, to include, but not limited to, posting personal information of others or defaming a person's character on the internet". This provision became the basis for revocation proceedings after Fazal complained about the blog post.
The probation officer never verified whether Chaker's blog statements about Fazal were accurate before initiating revocation proceedings. The condition's broad language left Chaker without clear guidance about permissible commentary on public officials. No definition specified what constituted "defaming a person's character" or how such determinations would be made.
Fazal discovered Chaker's blog post and determined it insulted her professional credibility. She initiated a sequential reporting process to multiple law enforcement agencies. First, she reported the blog to her own agency at the Nevada Attorney General's Office. She then contacted the Las Vegas Metro Police Department. Thereafter, she filed a report with the FBI.
All three agencies reviewed the matter and declined to file charges or arrest Chaker. Despite this uniform rejection by law enforcement, Fazal contacted Chaker's federal probation officer. The probation officer promptly sought to place Chaker in jail. Consequently, Chaker faced incarceration for speech that multiple law enforcement agencies determined did not warrant criminal prosecution. This first amendment case raised questions about using supervised release conditions to punish protected political commentary when criminal statutes provide no basis for charges.
Individuals under court supervision retain fundamental constitutional protections despite their status. Even prisoners and probationers receive constitutional protection, and terms of supervised release must be narrowly drawn to avoid infringing substantive rights like those of political expression.
Probation conditions that impact constitutional rights face additional scrutiny beyond standard reasonableness tests. Such conditions must be narrowly drawn, specifically tailored to meet the probationer's individual needs, and reasonably related to the compelling state interest in reformation and rehabilitation. Overly broad conditions fail to meet this standard and constitute unconstitutional restrictions on fundamental rights.
Vague or general probation conditions violate due process rights to fair and adequate notice. Probationers must understand what conduct is forbidden to avoid unwitting violations. Accordingly, courts require conditions sufficiently precise for probationers to know what is required and for courts to determine whether violations occurred.
The specificity requirement serves two purposes. Unclear conditions allow probationers to unwittingly violate terms without understanding prohibited conduct. Courts that fail to provide explicit standards force police and probation officers to speculate about barred behavior, creating risks of arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement.
William Blackstone noted centuries ago that "the liberty of the press is indeed essential to the nature of a free state; but this consists in laying no previous restraints upon publications, and not in freedom from censure for criminal matter when published". This principle established that governments cannot impose prior restraints on expression, though they may address criminal content after publication.
The Supreme Court recognized in NAACP v. Button (1963) that First Amendment freedoms need appropriate "breathing space" to thrive. The Court held that government may regulate speech only with narrow specificity. Abstract discussion represents just one form of protected communication; the First Amendment also protects vigorous advocacy of lawful ends against governmental intrusion.
The threat of sanctions may deter exercise of First Amendment freedoms almost as potently as actual sanctions. In effect, broad anti-disparagement provisions create exactly this chilling effect on protected political discourse.
Public officials remain appropriate objects of criticism, and protecting their feelings falls outside the appropriate province of courts. If anti-disparagement provisions become widespread, they could easily stifle valuable speech by activists and others. Chaker's words about Fazal did not meet the standard for defamation of a public figure, as he did not act with actual malice or reckless disregard for truth when publishing his blog post. His speech constituted constitutionally protected political discourse.
Broad speech restrictions on individuals under supervision create risks that extend far beyond single cases. When conditions prohibit disparaging or defaming others online, they threaten fundamental democratic discourse and public accountability mechanisms.
Public statements about workplace conduct and government operations remain central to democratic participation. Anti-disparagement provisions could easily stifle valuable speech by activists who challenge official misconduct. Whistleblowers within government agencies often possess the most direct knowledge of fraud, waste, and abuse. Public employees do not forfeit First Amendment rights in exchange for paychecks. Nevertheless, broad non-disparagement terms discourage disclosure of unlawful provisions and interfere with the ability to file charges or participate in investigations.
Employees who uncover wrongdoing need protection to speak publicly about matters affecting public safety and national security. Without such protections, those who witness misconduct face disincentives to persist in reporting violations. The chilling effect of potential sanctions may deter exercise of First Amendment freedoms almost as potently as actual sanctions.
Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. wrote in his Letter from a Birmingham Jail that "we are sadly mistaken if we feel that the election of Albert Boutwell as mayor will bring the millennium to Birmingham. While Mr. Boutwell is a much more gentle person than Mr. Connor, they are both segregationists, dedicated to maintenance of the status quo". Had King been subject to the same conditions as Chaker, he might have been resentenced for some of his most powerful writings. Worse still, he might never have published at all.
Public officials remain appropriate objects of criticism, and protecting their feelings falls outside the appropriate province of courts. The Supreme Court considered New York Times Co. v. Sullivan against the background of "a profound national commitment to the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open". Criticism of official conduct does not lose constitutional protection merely because it proves effective and diminishes official reputation.
Public officials must prove actual malice to recover damages for defamatory falsehoods relating to official conduct. Actual malice means knowledge that a statement was false or reckless disregard of whether it was false. Chaker's statement about Fazal being "forced out" did not meet this standard, as he obtained information from other sources without acting with reckless disregard for truth.
Multiple civil liberties organizations rallied behind Chaker's constitutional challenge. A coalition committed to freedom of speech online filed a friend-of-the-court brief with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in support of his case.
The ACLU of San Diego & Imperial Counties joined forces with the Cato Institute, Marion B. Brechner First Amendment Project, Electronic Frontier Foundation, and First Amendment Coalition to argue that the district court violated the First Amendment in punishing Chaker. The law firm Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP prepared the amicus brief. This coalition represented a remarkable alliance of civil liberties organizations from across the political spectrum.
The brief presented five constitutional violations. First, the condition against 'disparagement' was excessively vague and deterred important speech of public concern for no legitimate reason. Second, the conditions discriminated based on viewpoint by punishing criticism but not praise of public officials. Third, the court never required the government to prove that Chaker made a false statement of fact, subjectively believed his statement to be false, or acted with reckless disregard of its truth. Fourth, the complexity of defamation law undermined judicial economy in revocation hearings. Fifth, the court imposed overbroad conditions against posting 'false' or 'private' information without regard to fault or public concern.
David Loy, legal director of the San Diego ACLU, stated that "the government has legitimate interests in deterrence and rehabilitation, but they cannot trump the core First Amendment right to pure political speech online".
Oral argument occurred on June 10, 2016, before the Ninth Circuit panel. During proceedings, the government conceded the speech was non-criminal.
Chaker noted on his personal blog that he represented "only one of 4,708,100 people are on probation or parole". Millions of individuals' political speech could have been swept up under the precedent set by the lower court's decision.
The Ninth Circuit's decision stands as a decisive victory for constitutional protections under supervised release. To be sure, probationers and parolees retain fundamental First Amendment rights to engage in political discourse and criticize public officials. Courts cannot weaponize vague anti-disparagement provisions to silence protected speech that law enforcement agencies themselves decline to prosecute. In essence, this ruling safeguards democratic participation for millions under supervision while reaffirming that rehabilitation interests never trump core political expression rights. The decision reinforces a critical principle: supervised release conditions must remain narrowly tailored and cannot function as mechanisms to chill constitutionally protected commentary about government officials and matters of public concern.
Every case deserves
a strong defense
"*" indicates required fields
