Sheboygan confronts a lawsuit – a chaotic and troublesome matter. What are a few of the challenges awaiting a city in this situation?
(Sheboygan is far from my own small city – my analysis is general and implies no specific assessment or even comparison between the cities. Later this week, I will update on a case in Memphis. There is no hidden meaning in my assessment.)
Bad publicity.
A municipality and its so-called people of influence are vulnerable to bad publicity. Their positions don’t depend on principle; they depend on social connections. They value how they appear to others, and the outside press that follows a lawsuit isn’t easy to control.
The Web spreads stories fast, and within a day or two, people from across America will be writing to the plaintiff-blogger, and posting on websites continent-wide, with messages of support. People in Oklahoma will be following Mayor Perez of Sheboygan.
The farther away from the small-town elite, the less sympathy there will be for his conduct, and that of the other defendants.
(A favorable local press won’t help – the Web allows the plaintiff to leapfrog local flacks and hacks to reach a sensible, serious audience.)
An American community’s reputation is strongest when it embraces the strong American embrace of liberty.
Damages.
There is a risk of having to pay damages – money – in most civil suits. Worse, a federal forum will not include friends, cronies, etc., of the local officials. If anything, federal staff will look askance at municipal officials who’ll seem small-time compared with federal practice and procedure.
To Social Standing.
These situations go bad because a few local officials, egged on by ignorant and outraged locals, think they can do whatever they want to a blogger.
They tell their circle that they’ll ‘handle the problem,’ ‘resolve the matter,’ ‘get the evil blogger,’ etc. Their friends expect tough measures, and they assure their supporters and sycophants that they’ll ‘take care of things.’
When it becomes clear that the law does not allow municipal interference with a blogger’s lawful speech, suddenly all those officials who were going to get ‘tough’ look…weak, ignorant, and foolish.
From the chatter and admissions of others.
Most of these cases begin because politicians and their toadies think that their interests are all that matters, and they confer endlessly on the supposed threat that a blogger represents. They chatter about it like mad. These officials talk with friends about plans, schemes, theories, etc.
When confronted from the outside, they’ll try to deny that half the conversations they had ever took place. It’s too late by then – the same chattiness that causes them to squawk to their friends will lead to some of those friends to admit wrongful conduct in depositions or in affidavits.
(Someone’s “I have no idea” denial faces a friend’s “Yeah, we talked about doing that a few weeks before it actually happened.”)
By the time a lawsuit’s filed, plaintiff’s counsel may already know who’ll provide impeaching testimony.
To potential criminal conduct.
In the Sheboygan case, the plaintiff contends that she is the victim of death threats.
Death threats against a writer from Sheboygan. There is no one in Sheboygan or anywhere else who has, or ever will have, the right to threaten anyone.
Not from detestable places like Iran, North Korea, or Libya – from Sheboygan, Wisconsin.
Those involved deserve meaningful punishment.
Look how wrong and risky all this might be, though, to those who might have circulated threats initially made by others.
I have no idea how the threats were made, but look at the risk to everyone involved: did others know and circulate threatening statements made by third parties?
Did anyone provide comfort and support for threatening statements that others made to a blogger? (“Go ahead, do it,” “here’s what you should say,” “this is great,” “gotcha,” etc.)
Most or all of these risks to the defendants will might be present in a free speech case.
All might have been avoided, if the defendants had respected individual rights initially, or been sincerely contrite and reconciled to liberty afterward.