The US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has overturned a provision imposed against a January 6 defendant to have his computer surveilled and inspected for “disinformation,” while on probation.
Late last month, the appeals court asked a district judge who issued the order, Reggie Walton, to remove the computer monitoring part from the decision, with a panel of judges stating that Walton “plainly erred” when he mandated the measure.
The defendant, in this case, is Daniel Goodwyn, sentenced to two months in prison last June by the district court presided by Judge Walton, who found that in addition to other accusations against him, Goodwyn was spreading “misinformation” (and “disinformation” – but the judge used two words as if they meant the same thing).
This refers to Goodwyn in March 2023 appearing on Tucker Carlson Tonight and “spreading “dis(mis)information” when he “made no attempt to correct the record,” i.e., argue with Carlson, who said that January 6 defendants had received unfair treatment relative to their actions during the incident.
Usually, controversial cases of surveillance involve a person being spied on for expressing an opinion; here, it seems Judge Walton went for the measure because Goodwyn did not express the opinion he wanted to hear.
It also looks like, since the judge couldn’t get Carlson in the dock, he decided to throw the book at Goodwyn.
In addition to prison time and surveillance of his computer, Goodwyn’s guilty plea on a misdemeanor charge of unauthorized entering and remaining in a restricted building or grounds (he spent 36 seconds inside the Capitol) also cost him a total of $3,000 in fines and restitution. Goodwyn had spent 13 months in home detention before his trial.
Goodwyn has welcomed the decision of the Court of Appeals, saying it was in line with US law and tradition, and adding in a statement to the Epoch Times, “It’s unbelievable, in my opinion, that he (the judge) would unlawfully order Feds to spy on me in direct violation of the First and Fourth Amendments, under threat of locking me back up in prison.”
While appealing the computer monitoring mandate last June, Goodwyn’s attorney Carolyn Stewart noted that the US does not have a law on “mis(dis)information.
“Computer searches for undefined ‘disinformation’ are not reasonably related to any crime,” Stewart wrote.
