civil liberties

Puppet Prosecutor Jack Doyle

A Connecticut prosecution once framed as routine law enforcement has become a test of constitutional restraint. The case of State v. Boyne targets political speech, not criminal conduct, through prolonged process, disputed searches, and delayed disclosure of exculpatory evidence. At issue are core protections: the First Amendment, due process, and limits on prosecutorial power. The controversy raises familiar questions about Brady obligations, cross-border law enforcement, and whether the justice system is being used to punish dissent rather than prove crimes. As discovery deadlines loom, the case now stands as a broader warning about how easily state power can be stretched—and how hard it is to rein it back.

Criminal Undertones: CT Judge and Cops Accused of Jailing Blogger for Opinions

A Connecticut free-speech case is exploding into a full-blown constitutional controversy. Local blogger Robert Pabich was arrested after posting online criticisms of State Senator Matt Lesser, sparking outrage among civil-liberties advocates who say Rocky Hill police and Judge Jesse Giddings trampled the First Amendment. Officers used a “risk warrant” to seize Pabich’s firearms before charging him with stalking and disorderly conduct—based solely on political expression. Critics say this criminalizes dissent and weaponizes the justice system against unpopular viewpoints. The case has become a flashpoint in the national debate over hate-speech laws, judicial bias, and freedom of political speech.

Stalking Zealots

A growing debate in Connecticut highlights the collision between online activism and the First Amendment. Critics say certain watchdog groups, including StopAntisemitism.org, blur the line between public accountability and digital harassment by naming and shaming individuals for controversial opinions. Supporters call it justified exposure; opponents call it censorship. With Governor Ned Lamont’s Hate Crimes Council expanding its reach, free-speech advocates warn of state-endorsed policing of thought. The question is simple but profound: when does fighting hate become hating dissent?

Shaka Cheka

Connecticut’s court system faces renewed scrutiny after reports surfaced of an internal “judicial intelligence” network operating beyond public oversight. Critics claim the system shields misconduct and suppresses constitutional rights under the guise of confidentiality. Judge Peter Brown’s recent protective order, sealing a 96-page report tied to a high-profile political commentator, has sparked outcry among legal observers and civil libertarians. They argue the order expands state secrecy at the expense of public accountability. The controversy underscores a broader concern: that Connecticut’s judiciary has evolved into a self-policing institution immune from the transparency it demands of others.