Skip to content

civil liberties

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: Connecticut faces a free speech showdown as activism, online accountability, and government policy collide.

    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

      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.