First Amendment Violations:
Assault On Free Speech
The right to free speech embraces the liberty to discuss matters of public concern without fear of subsequent punishment.[1]
Sentencing someone for their political beliefs is anathema to the First Amendment and the principles enumerated in our founding documents.
Yet at sentencing, in direct violation of the First Amendment and Ross’s right to free speech, the judge spotlighted what she believed were Ross’s philosophical and political views, and then proceeded to impose the harshest penalty the law allowed.[2]
The judge’s expressed concern about Ross’s philosophical views, combined with the imposition of the harshest penalty the law allowed, strongly indicates that the sentence was imposed to punish him for what she considered to be his views and to prevent those views from being expressed or followed. This is not the action of an impartial judge.
During trial, Ross’s peaceful libertarian beliefs were forbidden from being mentioned in front of the jury, as some jurors might sympathize with those views.[4] Indeed, Ross’s political philosophy supports his claim that he designed and created Silk Road as a “free-market economic experiment” with an emphasis to protect user privacy, not as a drug market.[5]
References
- ▲[1] – Thornhill v. Alabama, 310 U.S. 88, 101-102 (1940)
- ▲[2] – Ross’s sentencing transcript (Appeal appendix page A1516)
- ▲[3] – Ross’s sentencing transcript (Appeal appendix page A1534)
- ▲[4] – DailyDot article – December 16, 2014 (“Silk Road prosecutors want to ban Ross Ulbricht’s libertarian politics in court”)
- ▲[5] – Appeal brief (page 13)