From the article
"Mr. Omar has the right to comment -- and criticize the police department of his community," Strelka said. Strelka and Omar said after the hearing that an appeal depends whether Omar can raise $5,000 needed as a bond before filing.
And why does he need to post bond? Could it be because he is presently incarcerated? And again from the article, it appears he is incarcerated because of what he said in a town meeting.
Do I agree with this activist? Nope, I think he's scum. But when a person is incarcerated for stating his opinion, then I have an issue. IMHO, Freedom of Speech is not based upon what I want to hear, but should be based upon what I don't want to hear. That said, there are limits as you so eloquently pointed out. But, in you example, I can cite harm created by the slander (loss of job, children, reputation, ect). Other than a bruised ego, what damages were done to the policeman?
Now, I wasn't there; and it could be that this person was warned that he was committing slander - to me this is a very slippery slope.
It's an appeal bond. This is not a criminal case. Omar is not incarcerated. He was sued in Civil Court. He lost. If he wants to appeal, he has to post an appeal bond.
Do I agree with this activist? Nope, I think he's scum. But when a person is incarcerated for stating his opinion, then I have an issue.
1. He is not incarcerated.
2. He committed slander, he didn't state an opinion.
IMHO, Freedom of Speech is not based upon what I want to hear, but should be based upon what I don't want to hear. That said, there are limits as you so eloquently pointed out. But, in you example, I can cite harm created by the slander (loss of job, children, reputation, ect). Other than a bruised ego, what damages were done to the policeman?
What about the damage to his reputation in the community?
Now, I wasn't there; and it could be that this person was warned that he was committing slander - to me this is a very slippery slope.
He doesn't have to be warned. He just needs to not commit slander.
"And why does he need to post bond? Could it be because he is presently incarcerated?"
No, the bond is to guarantee payment of the damages awarded to the officer if Omar loses his appeal. This is standard procedure when appealing a judgement from a civil trial. The appeal is not considered 'perfected' (a legal requirement) if a bond in the amount of the judgement is not posted. Thus, the appeal is not heard in that event.
You may have been further misled into believing that Omar was incarcerated because of the following statement in the article:
"Lumsden called Omar to the witness stand, but Omar cited the Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination and did not testify."IMO, either his lawyer was incompetent or wanted to gain public sympathy by inferring that the case was criminal instead of civil. (Since many witnesses from the public meeting could be called to testify that Omar said what the plaintiff alleged, there was no hope of denying that he said it.)
There is no 5th amendment protection in a civil trial (except for testimony which may be used to incriminate oneself of an actual crime in a separate criminal trial). In a civil trial, a refusal to testify is regarded the same as admitting the truth of opposition testimony. (ie., Omar effectively admitted he said everything the plaintiff alleged.)
Or, perhaps you were misled by these statements:
"Omar, 60, is an outspoken foe of many police and prison practices. He bombards state officials with letters about the treatment of prisoners and frequently speaks to the city council about conditions in the Roanoke jail or the actions of police officers.
Omar's defense was coordinated by the Rutherford Institute, a Charlottesville legal organization that works on civil liberties cases.
The emphasis in the above quote is mine and may be the phrase which suggested to you that Omar was himself incarcerated.
Obviously, Omar's lawyer was ascerting a 'freedom of speech' defense, but he failed to present any evidence or testimony that Omar was stating an opinion, or editorializing in a public forum.
Omar made the following statement as a statement of fact:
"He's been wanting to shoot someone for a long time."
If Omar's lawyer could have proved that Omar said: I THINK he's been wanting to shoot someone for a long time." or IN MY OPINION, he's been wanting to shoot someone for a long time." then Omar would have won his case.
The statement as it was actually made defamed the officer and if left unchallenged would have been grounds for having the officer fired and become ineligible for hiring by any other law enforcement agency. The threat to his continued employment and future employability was real, substantial, and impugned his reputation, making his job much more difficult and dangerous.