Indiana high court asked to review jailed blogger case
INDIANAPOLIS — Daniel Brewington was outraged by a southeast Indiana judge's handling of his divorce.

So he logged on to the Internet and unleashed an unrelenting torrent of criticism.

The judge's actions that cut off contact with his children were unethical, illegal and tantamount to child abuse, Brewington wrote.

It was a theme he hammered home in hundreds of rants launched into cyberspace over more than two years.

They were strong words — statements authorities decided crossed the line from free speech into criminal behavior. Brewington was convicted in 2011 of intimidation of a judge, attempted obstruction of justice and perjury....

..."We're concerned that the intimidation law, as used in this case, infringes upon protected speech and could be used as a weapon to go after anyone — whether that's a journalist, a private citizen, an activist, whatever the case — who doggedly criticizes the actions of public officials or public figures."...

Harshly Criticizing Judges (or Others) for Their Past Conduct = Crime?
...I think this too is a mistake on the court’s part, because the statements — or at least the great bulk of them — were likely to be seen by readers as opinions (however biased and unsound) about what the judge’s actions were morally tantamount to, and not factual allegations. But in any event, the court had made clear by this point that its analysis did not turn on this, and that Brewington’s statements could be punished regardless of whether they were true, so long as they were a continuing threat of exposing the judge to “hatred, contempt, disgrace, or ridicule” based on his past actions....

...As I’ve said above, I think this decision is wrong, and quite dangerous. It’s not limited to blackmail of the “do this or I’ll reveal this secret about you” sort; indeed, this speech involved neither an attempt to coerce the judge (the speech happened after the judge’s actions) nor a revelation of secrets. It would also apply equally to speech that harshly and repeatedly condemns legislators for their “prior lawful act[s],” as well as speech that condemns others — journalists, business leaders, and the like — at least so long as the speech seems to carry within it the “threat” of more speech. A very bad result, which I hope the Indiana Supreme Court reviews and reverses.