An Indiana man who received an unexpected visit from an investigator working for Republican Attorney General Todd Rokita after posting a political comment on Facebook has now won a significant preliminary victory in federal court.
A judge found that the investigator likely violated the man’s First Amendment rights by using the threat of criminal prosecution to pressure him into silence.
The controversy began when Bloomington resident Lee Lawmaster posted “86 Todd Rokita” on the attorney general’s Facebook page. He also made similar comments about Lieutenant Governor Micah Beckwith and U.S. Senator Jim Banks.
Lawmaster maintains that “86” meant removing those politicians from office, not physically harming them.
But on May 1, Kurt Spivey, the director of investigations for Rokita’s office, showed up at Lawmaster’s home and confronted him about the comments. The encounter was recorded by Lawmaster’s home security camera and Spivey’s audio recorder.
According to court documents, Spivey warned Lawmaster that he could face criminal charges, telling him, “Listen, if Comey was indicted, we could easily indict you over this today.” He then offered to let the matter slide if Lawmaster agreed to tone down his comments.
The reference was to former FBI Director James Comey, whose controversial social media post featuring the numbers “8647” had prompted a separate federal prosecution.
Following the investigator’s visit, Lawmaster stopped posting comments containing “86,” reduced his political commentary and made his personal blog inaccessible to the public. The ACLU of Indiana subsequently filed a federal lawsuit on his behalf.
On October 20, U.S. District Judge Sarah Evans Barker granted Lawmaster a preliminary injunction, finding he was likely to succeed on his claim that Spivey used government authority to coerce him into silence.
The judge also rejected Spivey’s attempt to dismiss the case, allowing Lawmaster’s claim for damages against him personally to continue.
Spivey argued that the encounter was a courteous threat assessment intended to protect public officials. Rokita’s office previously characterized the posts as threats rather than political opinions.
The judge, however, found that a polite conversation could still constitute unconstitutional coercion when accompanied by threats of prosecution.
The case raises a question extending far beyond Indiana politics: Where should government officials draw the line between investigating possible threats and intimidating citizens who criticize elected leaders?
Indiana residents, should an investigator from the attorney general’s office be showing up at someone’s home over a political Facebook comment?
Was this a legitimate public safety investigation, or an abuse of government authority that threatened free speech?
Sources: Indiana Capital Chronicle, Indiana Public Broadcasting, The Indiana Lawyer, ACLU of Indiana.