On June 4th the Florida Supreme Court will hear Oral Argument in a free speech case that could affect all attorneys and other professionals in the state and their basic right to free speech. The case involves Attorney Christopher W. Crowley, a former candidate for State Attorney in Florida’s 20th Circuit. Crowley was a target of a bar complaint, and the Florida Bar is trying to take away his legal license for political speech during a partisan Republican Primary race for State Attorney.
Crowley lost in a combative political campaign, against Amira Fox for State Attorney. After the campaign, Crowley was targeted with what appear to be frivolous Bar complaints by political opponents. Instead of dismissing the complaints, the Florida Bar has engaged in an anti-First Amendment crusade. The Florida State Bar charged Christopher Crowley with defamation of his political opponent, Amira Fox, after Mr. Crowley raised concerns about his political opponent during their political campaign in a Republican primary.
The referee, in the case recommended Christopher Crowley, Esq. to a 60-day suspension of his law license, for engaging in ‘controversial’ political speech during a Republican Primary campaign in Florida’s 20th district for State Attorney. Crowley appealed this decision, and the case will be heard in the Florida Supreme Court on June 4, 2025.
Nonpartisan judicial races have strict rules for attorneys campaigning for those offices, these rules have not been construed to apply to all political races. There currently is nothing in Florida Bar rules about restrictions on running for partisan political office. This judge’s creative application of judicial rules to non-judicial races disregards the First Amendment in an area that is considered the most sacred form of speech, political speech.
The Florida Bar appeared to be applying Maoist tactics in the case attempting to coerce Crowley to metaphorically put on a dunce hat and apologize for his incorrect speech during his political campaign.
Crowley’s ordeal is featured in a chapter in a new book by Lisa Miron, called WORLD ON MUTE: How Workplace Speech Committees are Destroying our Nations, and Eliminating our Civil Liberties. The book addresses the issue of professional organizations attempting to silence free speech under the threat of licensure removal.
Surprisingly, the case has not garnered much attention from alternative media. The outcome may impact all attorneys running for political office in the State of Florida and potentially all licensed professionals.
The campaign was nasty back and forth and Crowley made an issue of his opponent Amira Fox’s father’s book that was dedicated to his daughters and her uncle who had allegedly been a PLO member. Crowley was arrested because supporters held a raffle to raise money, which he never deposited and returned. At the time Crowley alleged that it was Amira Fox who had him arrested. Crowley then alleged that Amia Fox was corrupt claiming that Amira Fox interfered with a grand jury in a case.
The actual accusations and political mudslinging are irrelevant. The issue is whether the First Amendment applies to political races. The answer should be an obvious yes.
Crowley’s attorney is arguing that his speech is protected and that the Court must use a subjective rather than an objective standard, meaning that the speaker must knowingly make false statements:
“Nor is professional speech entitled to any lesser weight on the constitutional scales. The Court “has not recognized ‘professional speech’ as a separate category of speech. Speech is not unprotected merely because it is uttered by ‘professionals.’” Nat’l Inst. of Fam. & Life Advoc. v. Becerra, 585 U.S. 755, 767 (2018). Thus, a “State may not, under the guise of prohibiting professional misconduct, ignore constitutional rights.” Id. at 769 (citation omitted). “For example, th[e] Court has applied strict scrutiny to content-based laws that regulate the noncommercial speech of lawyers.” Id. at 771. Thus, the First Amendment will not tolerate tipping the constitutional scales in favor of the State by excusing the requirement that an attorney-speaker be shown to have a subjective recklessness before penalizing defamatory speech of a public official or figure—even a public legal officer or candidate.”
Since 2020, Western nations such as Canada and Western Europe have denigrated into countries resembling former Soviet bloc countries, while Eastern Europe has appeared to be greater defenders of liberty. In America the ‘Cancel Culture’ has become a common term as individuals are cancelled on social media.
Arguably, the Florida Bar is acting under the color of law and is therefore restrained by the Constitution. The Florida Bar, while a private organization, is an instrument of the government. Since being a member in good standing is a requirement of licensure in the legal profession it is painfully obvious that the Florida Bar is acting on behalf of the State of Florida.
