Michael Jackson v. Thomas Reuters America Corporation

Following the footsteps of other states, West Virginia passed “Daniel’s Law,” with stated aims of protecting the privacy of judges, prosecutors and public defenders, and law enforcement officers. Daniel’s Law allows those officials to sue anyone who “discloses” their home address or unpublished telephone number without permission, if “a reasonable person would believe that providing such information would expose another to harassment or risk of harm to life or property.” The statute defines “disclose” broadly, sweeping in publishing, providing, or disseminating by any means a covered address or phone number–and applies even if the government itself makes that information publicly available. 

Michael Jackson, a retired law enforcement officer, filed a class action lawsuit against several entities who routinely publish information Daniel’s Law covers. The U.S. District Court for the Northern District for West Virginia dismissed the lawsuit, rightly holding Daniel’s Law is a content-based regulation of speech that fails the rigorous strict scrutiny standard vital to protecting speech against the dangers of content-based restrictions on speech. 

FIRE filed an amicus brief in support of the defendants in Jackson v. Thomas Reuters America Corporation, and affirming the district court’s decision. FIRE’s brief explains the importance of applying strict scrutiny to content-based statutes like Daniel’s Law, and the dangers to free expression that can arise when courts do not keep the starch in the constitutional standards that protect against government censorship.

FIRE’s brief also highlights how journalists and ordinary citizens alike often share address and phone numbers of judges and law enforcement officials when commenting on important public issues, from sharing stories about those officials using personal phones to engage in misconduct to revealing that a police chief lives far away from the people he is obligated to protect and serve. Expansive content-based statutes like Daniel’s Law will chill that important speech, opening speakers up to retaliatory lawsuits for speaking out about government officials’ conduct.