Blogging Contempt Prosecutions
✅ Definition: Blogging Contempt Prosecutions
Blogging contempt generally arises when a blogger publishes content that violates a court order, interferes with judicial proceedings, or disrespects the court, resulting in a contempt charge. Contempt of court is a mechanism courts use to preserve authority, maintain order, and ensure fair administration of justice.
Common forms of blogging contempt include:
Publishing material violating a gag order or suppression order.
Publishing material that prejudices a pending trial.
Publishing false or misleading statements about the court or judge.
Publishing confidential or sealed court information.
⚖️ Legal Issues in Blogging Contempt Cases
Whether the blogging activity violated a specific court order or interfered with judicial process.
Whether the content was knowingly or recklessly published in violation of court rules.
Balancing First Amendment/free speech rights against the court’s interest in fair trial and order.
Whether the contempt was civil (to compel compliance) or criminal (punishment).
📚 Case 1: In re Proceedings Against Reed, 239 P.3d 1076 (Wash. 2010)
Facts:
Reed, a blogger, published details about a juvenile court case that was under a protective order barring public disclosure. The court found Reed in contempt for violating the order.
Ruling:
The Washington Supreme Court upheld the contempt ruling, holding that the court’s order was clear and the blogger knowingly violated it, interfering with the court’s authority.
Importance:
Shows that violating protective or suppression orders via blogging can lead to contempt, even where free speech is implicated.
📚 Case 2: Commonwealth v. Nesbitt, 480 Mass. 330 (2018)
Facts:
Nesbitt blogged information about an ongoing criminal trial, allegedly publishing prejudicial content that influenced potential jurors.
Ruling:
The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court found Nesbitt in criminal contempt for publishing material that could obstruct justice by influencing jurors.
Importance:
Demonstrates that blogging prejudicial trial information can constitute contempt, particularly when it threatens a fair trial.
📚 Case 3: United States v. Brown, 218 F.3d 415 (5th Cir. 2000)
Facts:
Brown, a blogger, defied a court gag order by publishing details about a federal criminal investigation.
Ruling:
The Fifth Circuit affirmed the contempt sanction, holding that willful violation of gag orders by blogging undermines the judicial process.
Importance:
Reaffirms the validity of gag orders and sanctions for willful violations in the blogging context.
📚 Case 4: In re Primus, 436 U.S. 412 (1978) (while not blogging-specific, applies)
Facts:
Primus was found in contempt for publishing material critical of a judge and judicial proceedings.
Ruling:
The Supreme Court emphasized the balance between First Amendment rights and the need to protect the court’s dignity and impartiality.
Importance:
Sets the standard for when speech criticizing the judiciary crosses into contempt, relevant to bloggers.
📚 Case 5: State v. Houston Chronicle Publishing Co., 757 S.W.2d 537 (Tex. Crim. App. 1988)
Facts:
The Houston Chronicle published articles about a high-profile case subject to a gag order. The paper was held in contempt.
Ruling:
The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals ruled that publication of materials violating court orders and jeopardizing fair trial rights may be punished as contempt.
Importance:
Applies to bloggers as well as traditional media—court authority extends to all publishers.
📚 Case 6: In re: Jimenez, 828 F.3d 13 (1st Cir. 2016)
Facts:
Jimenez, a blogger, posted sealed court documents and details from a sealed investigation.
Ruling:
The First Circuit found Jimenez in contempt, emphasizing that publication of sealed or confidential materials undermines judicial integrity and can result in contempt.
Importance:
Confirms that bloggers publishing sealed or confidential info face contempt sanctions.
📚 Case 7: People v. Cohen, 51 Cal.3d 307 (1990)
Facts:
Cohen, a blogger and commentator, criticized a judge harshly, including accusations of bias and misconduct.
Ruling:
California Supreme Court found contempt, emphasizing that while free speech protects criticism, malicious falsehoods that impede justice may be punished.
Importance:
Draws the line between permissible criticism and contemptuous conduct in blogging.
🔍 Summary of Key Legal Principles
| Principle | Explanation | Case(s) |
|---|---|---|
| Clear Court Order Violation | Willfully breaching gag, protective, or suppression orders is contempt. | Reed, Brown, Houston Chronicle |
| Impact on Fair Trial | Publishing prejudicial info likely to influence jurors is contempt. | Nesbitt, Houston Chronicle |
| Publication of Sealed Material | Publishing sealed documents or info can be contempt. | Jimenez |
| Balance Free Speech & Order | Criticism protected unless it crosses into malicious interference. | Primus, Cohen |
| Intentional & Willful Conduct | Contempt requires intentional or reckless disregard of court authority. | Reed, Brown |
🧠 Practical Takeaways
Bloggers must adhere to court orders or risk contempt charges.
Publishing prejudicial or sealed info risks contempt, even if motivated by public interest.
Courts carefully balance free speech with protecting judicial process.
Contempt can be criminal (punishment) or civil (coercive).
Defenses may include lack of knowledge, absence of intent, or constitutional protections, but these are limited.
RELATED Blog
0 comments