Social media influencer Lane Myers associate Blue Line Transparency released an extended jail house audio reading by Myers Friday night, featuring a speech that Myers is said to have read at his probation modification hearing earlier this week.
In the description of the video, Blue Line Transparency continued Myers’ narrative that he is being tried “in secret” as the Judge has not allowed video or audio streaming of his hearings.
While the court room is open to the public and transcripts are available, Myers and his associates have advocated for more openness from the court.
Myers’ use of the third person to refer to himself is a personal choice. Previously, he has characterized the use as “attorney” Lane Myers speaking for “client” Lane Myers.
The rights of free speech, so precious to this nation since its founding, are not limited to soft murmurings behind the doors of a person’s home or private conversations with like-minded friends and family.
These guarantees protect the right of every American to express their belief in public. The guarantees of free speech are not only for those who are deemed sufficiently enlightened, advanced, or progressive, or credible. They are for everyone.
This freedom to differ is not is not limited to things that do not matter much. The test of its substance is the right to differ as to things that touch the heart of the existing order.
Given this reality, the government must not be allowed to force persons to express a message contrary to their deepest convictions.
If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion.
In examining the text of Arizona’s Free Speech Clause, we must first observe that whereas the First Amendment is phrased as a constraint on government, Our state’s provision, by contrast, is a guarantee of the individual right to freely speak, write, and publish, subject only to constraint for the abuse of that right.
Thus, by its terms, the Arizona Constitution provides an even broader protection for free speech than the First Amendment.
A violation of First Amendment principles necessarily implies a violation of the broader protections of Arizona Constitution, Article 2, Section 6.
At the heart of the First Amendment lies the principle that each person should decide for himself or herself the ideas and beliefs deserving of expression, consideration, and adherence, and that any government action that requires the utterance of a particular message favored by government contravenes this essential right.
Pure speech is protected under both the Arizona Constitution and the First Amendment. Pure speech includes written and spoken words as well as other media such as innings. music and film that predominantly serve to express thoughts, emotions, or ideas. Pure speech also includes artwork. The First Amendment protects art for art’s sake. Purely expressive activity or pure speech is entitled the full First Amendment protections.
Whether a third party is able to discern any articulable message, especially from artwork, is simply irrelevant in terms of whether it’s protected under the First Amendment. The essence of free speech protection is a person’s autonomy over what to say and when to say it.
Government regulation of speech must be measured in minimums and maximums, and in seeking to promote a valid government interest, it It should avoid adopting a prophylactic rule of speech that is unduly burdensome and not narrowly tailored.
Because First Amendment freedoms need breathing space to survive, broad prophylactic rules in the area of free expression are suspect. Precision of regulation must be the touchstone in an area so closely touching our most precious freedoms.
The enduring strength of the First Amendment is that it allows people to speak their minds and express their beliefs without government interference Casting Mr. Myers’ free speech and exercise right in a cynical light does grave harm to a society, as Justice Jackson observed in Barnett Struggles to coerce, uniformity of sentiment and support of some end thought, essential to their time and country, have been waged by many good as well as by evil men.
But inevitably, those bent on its accomplishment must resort to an ever-increasing severity. This court would be wise to heed his warnings about government efforts to compel uniformity of beliefs and ideas.
As governmental pressure toward unity becomes greater, so strife becomes more bitter as to whose unity shall be. Ultimate futility of attempts to compel coherence is the lesson of every such effort from the Roman drive to stamp out Christianity as a disturber of its pagan unity.
The Inquisition as a means to religious and dynastic unity, the Siberian exiles as a mean to Russian un as a means to Russian unity. down to the fast-failing efforts of our present totalitarian enemies.
Those who began coercive elimination of dissent soon find themselves exterminating dissenters. Compulsory unification of opinion achieves only the unanimity of the grade judge.
With that being said, this court must modify or eliminate the disputed illegal conditions of probation because they violate Mr. Myers’ constitutional rights both on their face and the further. and as applied.
These cognitions fail to provide due process because pursuant to State vs. Elmore, Arizona Appeals 92, probation terms violate due process if a person of ordinary intelligence cannot understand what conduct is required or prohibited.
Quite frankly, these conditions are so unconstitutional that even above average intelligence lawyers, judges, law professors, FBI agents, pro se idiots, prosecutors, probation officers, wannabe probation officers, and professional victims struggle to discern exactly what is required or prohibited by these conditions.
This is epitomized by the fact that Mr. Myers is sitting here in shackles in an orange jump suit for allegedly violating these conditions solely based on Uh the male person’s interpretation of the conditions.
Actual probation has one interpretation, Rachel Styles has her interpretations, the victim has her interpretations, defense counsel has inter his interpretations. interpretation, this court has its interpretation, and most importantly, Mr. Myers has his interpretation.
That interpretation is that these conditions require him to guess at its contours and can be applied arbitrarily and capriciously as they currently are Mr. Myers is being held without bond with absolutely zero evidence he has violated these conditions as written.
It’s based strictly on multiple people’s interpretation, all incorrectly and illegally.
Make no mistake, these conditions at issue here today are blatantly unconstitutional and any alleged violations real or perceived will be immediately dismissed upon appeal.
Mr. Myers spent eleven months following these illegal conditions while researching the legality of these conditions.
It’s unequivocal that the conditions at issue today are not supported by any case law in Arizona, United States history, violate the Arizona and United States Constitution and go far beyond any reasonable nexus related to protecting the victim or rehabilitating Mr. Myers.
Mr. Myers will never stop criticizing government employees because he does not have to.
Mr. Myers’ pure speech.
Handed artwork are the absolute zenith of protected liberty interest.
The Arizona Constitution does not say all persons other than Mr. Myers or all persons except those on probation may speak, write, and publish freely.
This court must do everything in its power to protect Mr. Myers’ liberty and truth. even at the expense of the victims.
Government who are government employees feeling uncomfortable or ridicule. Welcome to being adult, currently employed by the government.
Stop crying and get over it. Learn how to ignore things that make you uncomfortable. This court must restore order and turn this back into a court of law and not a court of feelings.
There is no reasonable nexus to censoring Mr. Myers from talking about its own court case. from associating with law-abiding citizens and not allowing him to even mention the name of two government employees.
Privacy does not outweigh protected liberty insurance. If the victim and her husband do not want to face scrutiny in their positions of employment as public servants, they must resign immediately.
This is the year 2026, Orwell’s 1984.
