A federal judge is allowing a conservative activist and free speech crusader to continue suing a Kansas county for removing him from several commission meetings in recent years.
Senior U.S. District Judge Julie A. Robinson’s ruling Wednesday throws out some legal claims by Justin Spiehs, a vocal and sometimes profane critic of liberal leaders in the city of Lawrence, Kansas, and Douglas County. But she’s allowing him to pursue other claims.
His lawsuit, filed in late 2023, alleges the Douglas County Commission and law enforcement officers violated his First Amendment rights by removing him for his pointed speech.
Spiehs, who holds a Ph.D. and formerly taught at the University of Kansas in Lawrence, was arrested at the commission’s meeting on April 20, 2022; removed from a meeting the following month; and arrested again on May 1, 2024.
Spiehs displayed several signs that contained rank profanity, but which his attorney Linus Baker says is nonetheless protected speech under the First Amendment. Baker warns of the dangers of public officials parsing what speech is and isn’t objectionable.
Besides his pushing the envelope on free speech, Spiehs was a vocal anti-mask champion – whose fight against mask mandates during COVID-19, particularly for children, now appears prescient. A 2023 study concluded the use of even medical-grade masks may have made “little to no difference” in the virus’ spread.
“He was absolutely right. Still is,” Baker says. “And as to the vaccines, he was right. So it didn’t do what they thought. It didn’t prevent transmission. He was absolutely right on the abuse to children. You’ve got all the statistics now that prove it.”
Whether Spiehs is right in his lawsuit against Douglas County is another matter, but it will at least now be tested in the courts.
In general, meanwhile, Baker says he has personally seen a growing epidemic in imperiousness among locally elected officials when it comes to their distaste for dissent.
“It’s in law enforcement too,” Baker says. “It’s been a slippery slope. They have lost their way in terms of what The First Amendment actually means.
“They’re coming for Dr. Spiehs, but after they get done with him they’re coming for you. All these boards, they think, ‘We’re here and we just want happy talk – and anything else that could be embarrassing, we don’t want that in the public.’
“That’s not what the First Amendment is all about. And they are using law enforcement repeatedly.”
There isn’t just a danger of boards and commissions criminalizing dissent, Baker says – it’s already here.
“They are criminalizing speech. I mean, that’s what they’re doing. They are making it a crime to just simply violate their speech code. Even if it was legit, they’re making that a crime.
“Even if someone violates a speech code, or speech rule, at any of these open meetings, it doesn’t make it a crime. It’s not a crime. But these boards, this one in particular, fancies itself using law enforcement as a bouncer – as its personal enforcer of its rules. And that shouldn’t be that way.”
