Written by Michael Anderson.

Senior U.S. District Judge Reggie Walton is making headlines again with a bold move that’s stirring up quite the discussion. Despite being previously overruled by the U.S. Court of Appeals for trying to monitor a Jan. 6 probationer’s computer usage for disinformation, Judge Walton is not backing down. He’s now considering reinstating similar restrictions on Daniel Goodwyn of Corinth, Texas, and has asked Goodwyn to justify why he shouldn’t be subjected to this monitoring again.

Carol Stewart, Goodwyn’s defense attorney, maintains that the ruling from the appeals court clearly supports their argument that such computer monitoring is a breach of the First and Fourth Amendments. According to Stewart, because Goodwyn’s minor trespassing charge wasn’t related to computer use, the monitoring seems out of place. She notes, “The application of computer monitoring conditions to conduct invasive searches is covered extensively by case law, which requires that the computer be integral to the crime—not just used incidentally.”

A Complex Legal Challenge

The case is tangled further by the specifics of Goodwyn’s alleged offenses and his self-proclaimed role as a citizen journalist for Stophate.com during the Capitol breach on January 6. Goodwyn, who spent only 36 seconds inside the Capitol, later highlighted his actions on “Tucker Carlson Tonight,” which Judge Walton cited as spreading “disinformation.” This appearance was a key factor in Walton’s initial decision to impose the 60-day prison sentence with the computer monitoring order.

However, this decision faced strong judicial resistance. The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals struck down the monitoring order, criticizing it for not being “reasonably related” to the relevant sentencing factors and being more restrictive than necessary. They’ve sent the issue back to Judge Walton, instructing him to either substantiate the monitoring with solid legal reasons and a detailed record or to eliminate it entirely. Stewart is hopeful post-appeal, suggesting the judge could simply modify his sentencing judgment to remove the condition.

Our Take

Judge Walton’s firm approach to handling what he perceives as ‘disinformation’ regarding the January 6 events sets a concerning precedent for free speech and fair legal processes. It prompts a serious debate about how to balance national security with personal freedoms, particularly in situations that involve digital surveillance and the expression of diverse viewpoints.

This scenario is a potent reminder of the fine line between enforcing law and order and preserving constitutional rights. As conservatives, it’s our duty to remain alert and advocate for the protection of free speech and due process, especially when they appear threatened by potential judicial overreach. We must ensure that our legal system’s actions are justified, proportionate, and directly related to the offenses in question to protect our fundamental liberties from being compromised under the pretense of maintaining security or combating misinformation.