Jury: Ex-Sheriff Clarke Didn’t Violate Man’s Free Speech With Harassing Post

on November 28, 2016 in New York City.
NEW YORK, NY - NOVEMBER 28: Milwaukee County Sheriff David Clarke leaves Trump Tower on November 28, 2016 in New York City. President-elect Donald Trump and his transition team are in the process of filling cabinet ... NEW YORK, NY - NOVEMBER 28: Milwaukee County Sheriff David Clarke leaves Trump Tower on November 28, 2016 in New York City. President-elect Donald Trump and his transition team are in the process of filling cabinet and other high level positions for the new administration. (Photo by Spencer Platt/Getty Images) MORE LESS
Start your day with TPM.
Sign up for the Morning Memo newsletter

MILWAUKEE (AP) — Former Milwaukee County Sheriff David Clarke did not violate a man’s free speech with taunting Facebook posts after detaining him at an airport last year for shaking his head at Clarke while boarding a flight, a federal jury has concluded.

In a civil lawsuit against Clarke, Daniel Black argued he received hateful messages and was fearful after Clarke called him a “snowflake” online and said Black “wouldn’t be around to whine” if the then-sheriff really wanted to harass him. Clarke made the comment after Black complained to the county that the sheriff had his deputies detain and question him for 15 minutes after he got off the plane in Milwaukee.

Jurors deliberated nearly three hours before deciding Monday night that Clarke’s posts were not enough to chill Black’s future speech. Clarke resigned on Aug. 31 to join a political action committee that supports President Donald Trump.

Black said he shook his head at Clarke last January on the flight from Dallas to Milwaukee because Clarke was wearing Cowboys gear when they were playing the Green Bay Packers in the playoffs.

Black at one point became teary-eyed while testifying Monday, saying he would never file another complaint against an elected official because the incident left him so rattled. He said he sued last year because he needed “someone to say this is wrong.”

Although Black was not arrested or cited, his attorneys argued that Clarke’s actions — particularly his social media taunts — were retaliatory and threatening enough to silence criticism of the sheriff.

“I felt guilty, I felt scared, that I had a target on my back,” Black testified, recalling one post in particular on the sheriff’s official Facebook site.

Clarke wrote on Facebook: “Cheer up, snowflake … if Sheriff Clarke were to really harass you, you wouldn’t be around to whine about it.”

Black’s attorney, Anne Sulton, showed jurors an email from Clarke staffer Fran McLaughlin expressing concern about the post, telling the sheriff it was “perceived as a threat, and I don’t think it should be on our agency page.” Clarke responded by saying, “It stays.”

“That shows the malice,” Sulton said.

Clarke was not in court Monday. His attorneys said Black did television interviews after the encounter and didn’t appear scared.

“Far from being chilled, he was encouraged and he enjoyed it,” attorney Charles Bohl said during opening statements, describing the case as “an unfriendly internet spat between two people who apparently don’t like each other very much.”

In his closing arguments, Bohl told jurors that Black’s TV interviews and social media posts about the incident showed that Clarke’s comments did not stop Black from exercising his free speech rights “abundantly” and that “he got his 15 minutes of fame.”

Black wanted jurors to award him a compensation amount of their choosing for emotional distress and other damages, as well as attorneys’ fees.

Latest News

Notable Replies

  1. I was a plaintiff’s attorney for 20 years. I despise Clarke and what he did was very, very wrong. But I find it hard to defend bringing a lawsuit where the damages are that the guy was detained for 15 minutes. Sometimes you just have to suck it up.

  2. I didn’t get the free speech thing. It was a blatant abuse of power, but I don’t know how that proceeds to legal recourse. Well at least he’s out of MCSD.

  3. Avatar for paulw paulw says:

    I entirely get the free speech thing. The plaintiff’s complaint is that he looked at the sheriff/generalissimo sideways and men with guns arrived to take him into custody. Followed by a series of not-very veiled public threats. Pretty clearly designed to discourage the plaintiff and anyone else from saying or doing anything that might offend the sheriff.

    I can see that a civil suit might not be the right venue for pursuing this, but the violation is pretty clear. (I would say it’s criminal misuse of the powers of office – whatever the official name of that family of crimes is – but of course you’re not going to get anyone to investigate a sheriff.)

  4. This decision not to hold this evil bastard accountable will have consequences. Clarke will go out in the future and just up his intimidation of others with no, next time it might have physical violence.

    Where do they get these jurors? They seem tailor-made to each case. Bad decision!

  5. Clarke can be described as a Oreo!

    Oreo
    Self explanatory, Black on the outside, white on the inside. A black guy that acts white.

Continue the discussion at forums.talkingpointsmemo.com

12 more replies

Participants

Avatar for system1 Avatar for paulw Avatar for old_curmudgeon Avatar for jackster Avatar for bojimbo26 Avatar for steviedee111 Avatar for boscobrown Avatar for sniffit Avatar for bigbraxstone Avatar for dickweed Avatar for dave_mb Avatar for jordanolsen26 Avatar for schilder Avatar for seveneagles

Continue Discussion
Masthead Masthead
Founder & Editor-in-Chief:
Executive Editor:
Managing Editor:
Deputy Editor:
Editor at Large:
General Counsel:
Publisher:
Head of Product:
Director of Technology:
Associate Publisher:
Front End Developer:
Senior Designer: