Politics
Federal judge says Indiana AG investigator likely crossed First Amendment line in Bloomington visit
A federal judge found that an investigator for Attorney General Todd Rokita likely violated Bloomington resident Lee Lawmaster’s free-speech rights by threatening prosecution over social media posts. The case raises questions about how far state officials may go when investigating online comments about public figures.
An Indiana Attorney General’s investigator likely violated a Bloomington man’s First Amendment rights by confronting him at home and threatening prosecution over his social media posts, a federal judge ruled Oct. 20.
U.S. District Judge Sarah Evans Barker said investigator Kurt Spivey likely coerced and intimidated Lee Lawmaster during a May visit. Spivey questioned Lawmaster about posts containing the number “86” alongside the names of Attorney General Todd Rokita, Lt. Gov. Micah Beckwith and U.S. Sen. Jim Banks.
A doorbell camera recorded Spivey telling Lawmaster he had “crossed the line” and that officials “could easily indict you over this today,” according to court documents. Lawmaster was not charged with a crime.
The American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana, which represents Lawmaster, argued that his posts did not amount to a true threat — a demanding legal standard for speech that falls outside First Amendment protection. The ACLU said the investigator’s warnings were intended to discourage speech protected by the Constitution.
“When a state official shows up on your doorstep and threatens prosecution over something you posted online, the message is pretty clear,” said Ken Falk, the ACLU of Indiana’s legal director.
The state argued that an injunction would hamper the attorney general’s office from assessing reported threats against public officials. Barker wrote that Spivey likely used the investigation to thwart protected speech by threatening legal sanctions unless Lawmaster complied with his demands.
Rokita’s office said it is reviewing the court order. Spokesperson Sladye Settle said the office takes cases involving death threats against state officials seriously and that this situation was no different. Earlier this year, a man pleaded guilty to felony intimidation after threatening Rokita.
The meaning of “86” has also drawn attention in other cases. The term is commonly used to mean rejecting or getting rid of something, though its meaning depends on context. Former FBI Director James Comey was indicted over a since-deleted 2025 Instagram post showing seashells arranged as “86 47”; prosecutors alleged the post threatened President Donald Trump. An indictment is an accusation, not a finding of guilt.
Lawmaster’s case comes amid other disputes over government responses to online speech, including lawsuits involving a Florida woman questioned by police about a post criticizing her city’s mayor and cases involving people disciplined or jailed over comments about conservative activist Charlie Kirk. The ruling underscores the constitutional stakes when officials investigate online remarks about public figures: investigating a potential threat is different from using the prospect of prosecution to suppress protected expression.