In most cases, when a court reaches a bad decision, the lawyers are at fault. Hysterical rhetoric, poor research, failure to acknowledge the legitimacy of the opponent's arguments, failure to appreciate the logical consequences of one's own arguments, or the absence of legal representation on one side of the case. I am going to put the case of Nebraska v. Drahota, No. 08-628 (Neb. Ct.App., June 16, 2009), into the last category. An intermediate state court in Nebraska, without appearing to think too hard about the issue, held that a student was lawfully convicted of breach of the peace based on a pair of e-mail messages (okay, profane rants) he sent to a professor. The court also held, again without too much analysis, that the student's e-mails were constitutionally unprotected insulting or "fighting words," citing Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568 (1942), in support.
The defendant represented himself.
This case involved (1) a student, (2) writing about politics, (3) via e-mail. It is difficult to imagine how this sort of communication can disturb the peace or why it would not be subject to the most stringent First Amendment protection. This guy (who has a strained take on reality) should have hired an attorney. Now we're all stuck with this court's opinion.
Comments