The Irony of the "Chilling Effect" on display.

The bat guano crazy left won one this time.  And it’s not a good look on local government.

TRAVERSE CITY — Grand Traverse County has settled a long-running lawsuit involving former Commissioner Ron Clous for $100,000, according to plaintiff attorney Blake Ringsmuth.

The settlement of the case likely came from a desire to end the nuisance suit and get back to the work they were supposedly elected to do.  However, the core of the lawsuit against Commissioner Ron Clous revolves around the claim that his display of a rifle during a virtual meeting had a “chilling effect” on free speech. Yet, the ensuing legal action itself arguably exerts a chilling effect on expressive conduct, particularly when it pertains to constitutionally protected rights.

The “chilling effect” refers to the inhibition or discouragement of legitimate exercise of natural and legal rights by the threat of legal sanction. In this case, Clous’s action—while perhaps ill-advised (and maybe a little funny at the time), was a form of expressive conduct. The lawsuit, and the subsequent $100,000 settlement, could deter public officials from engaging in similar expressions, fearing legal repercussions.

Legal Precedents and the Boundaries of Free Speech

To assess the legality of Clous’s actions, Let’s dig a little and consider relevant legal precedents:

• Counterman v. Colorado (2023): The Supreme Court held that, for speech to be considered a “true threat” unprotected by the First Amendment, there must be proof that the speaker had a subjective understanding of the threatening nature of the statement. Recklessness suffices, but mere negligence does not.

• Snyder v. Phelps (2011): The Court protected offensive speech on public issues, emphasizing that speech cannot be restricted simply because it is upsetting or arouses contempt.

Applying these standards, Clous’s brief display of a firearm, without any overt threat or direct communication to the plaintiff, likely does not meet the threshold of a “true threat.” His action, albeit provocative, falls within the ambit of protected speech, especially considering the context of a public meeting discussing Second Amendment rights. (Yo.. attorneys for the county..  I dug this up with ChatGPT..  Maybe you could have too?)

Second Amendment Considerations

Oh, and by the way kids .. Michigan law, at the time of the incident, permitted the open carry of firearms in public spaces, including government buildings, unless explicitly prohibited. During the COVID-19 pandemic, when meetings transitioned to virtual formats, the legal framework did not specifically address the display of firearms in such settings. Therefore, Clous’s action, while unconventional, did not contravene any clear legal prohibitions, especially those preventing a commissioner from scaring a woman who was on the phone (no video folks) with the brief shot of his hunting rifle. (Insert eye-roll here)

The Settlement: A Precedent for Censorship?

I can smell the sewage backing up now.   The $100,000 settlement raises concerns about the potential for legal actions to suppress lawful expression. When public officials face significant financial penalties for expressive conduct that does not constitute a true threat or violate laws, it sets a precedent that may deter robust participation in public discourse.

Bad juju here.   I have no issue addressing malfeasance.   And if the government is in-fact targeting an individual-Right or left, it has to stop.  But we need to end this fake fear crap.

While Clous’s decision to display a rifle during a virtual meeting was considered in poor taste by some, it did not amount to a true threat or illegal conduct under prevailing legal standards. The subsequent lawsuit and settlement, however, risks creating a chilling effect on free expression, particularly concerning contentious issues like gun rights.

It’s imperative that we safeguard the delicate balance between protecting individuals from genuine threats and preserving the fundamental freedoms enshrined in the First and Second Amendments.