Skip to content

Greggori Borrelli

The Hateful Eight: Connecticut case charges a blogger for speech without identifying the alleged threats. A new test for the First Amendment.

The Hateful Eight: Nutmeg Edition

    After nearly a decade of Connecticut officials hunting for a speech crime, prosecutors have now charged a blogger with “true threats” based on eight online posts — but they refuse to say which words crossed the line. The case, led by Chief State’s Attorney Patrick Griffin and Judge Peter Brown, raises a chilling question: can the government criminalize political commentary it doesn’t like?
    Critics say it’s the latest episode in Connecticut’s long campaign to silence dissent under the guise of “hate speech.” Supporters call it accountability. Either way, the state’s handling of the so-called Hateful Eight may redefine free expression in America’s courts.

    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.