There is an interesting controversy in Arkansas where Circuit Judge Mike Maggio was revealed as an anonymous commenter known as “geauxjudge.” After being outed from online sites, Maggio apologized and withdrew from a race for the appellate court. The controversy however raises the question of whether such comments should be a subject for ethical discipline and whether judges should have the right to comment anonymously on such sites.
The most controversial comments appeared on a Louisiana State University message board called Tiger Droppings. In one comment, Geauxjudge made fun of the name of a University of Alabama football player who is black, Ha’Sean “Ha Ha” Clinton-Dix. He questioned the wisdom of parents giving such irregular names to their children: “I do agree about names may not be predictors of future success but in reality: How many doctors do you hear named Dr. Taneesha or Ha-Ha? How many bankers do [you] hear named Brylee? So stick with something close to normal. Or come sit in criminal court any day and see the ‘common names.'”
In another comment, Geauxjudge discussed how divorce is too quickly pursued in many cases and later regretted:
“I see it every day. A woman makes [an] emotional decision to divorce because the husband stepped out. When otherwise he was a good provider, father and husband . . . then a year or two later realizes uh oh I am worse off financially, emotionally and relationship wise but hey they showed that SOB. Too many times the women get their advice from other divorced women.”
In yet another comment, he observed that “Men have two needs. Feed me and f— me. Take care of both we will be good. Whichever one you don’t then the man will find. Women have need for security. So man take care of that and will be OK.”
In another comment he described a story about a woman having sex with a dog, as “just a small step” from having “TGGLBS” sex (an apparent reference transgender, gay, lesbian or bisexual sex).
There is obviously content in these postings that raise serious questions of prejudice. However, there is also the question of whether a judge, using anonymous identities, should be afforded the same right of expression of others, including obnoxious or juvenile couples. Maggio did not comment under his name or associate comments with his office in most of the comments. I have previously written about concerns that public employees are increasingly being disciplined for actions in their private lives or views or associations outside of work. We have previously seen teachers (here, here, England, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here), here, here, students (here and here) and other public employees (here and here and here) fired for their private speech or conduct, including school employees fired for posing in magazines (here), appearing on television shows in bikinis (here), or having a prior career in the adult entertainment industry (here).
Judicial ethics rules make clear that judges are subject to scrutiny for public comments:
Rule 1.2. A judge shall act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the independence, integrity, and impartiality of the judiciary, and shall avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety.
Official Comment [2]: A judge should expect to be the subject of public scrutiny that might be viewed as burdensome if applied to other citizens, and must accept the restrictions imposed by the Code.
Thus, judges are put on notice of this added burden. Rule 3.1 is even broader in prohibiting any “extrajudicial activities . . . that would appear to a reasonable person to undermine the judge’s independence, integrity, or impartiality.”
However, Mastio did not act in public by name in his assuming anonymous status. Indeed, the adoption of such a status could be viewed either as an evasion or a recognition of his unique responsibilities in terms of public disclosure.
Judges are clearly different in that they are expected to uphold the dignity and credibility of their courts in their public actions, including during non-work hours. However, Maggio never used his identity or this courts. His true identity was deduced by piecing together references and asides.
The most serious ethical concerns were raised in a discussion of how a “judge friend” handled the adoption of a son by actress and Oscar winner Charlize Theron and shared details. Since adoption proceedings are confidential, the comments raise major questions of judicial impropriety and disclosure violations.
In this discussion, Geauxjudge makes fun of Theron’s adoption of a black South African childen (Theron was born in South Africa) and gives details from the case. He discusses how she came to court with an entourage for the single-parent adoption and jokes that “I offered to be the baby daddy.” He also asks “Did she get herself a black baby?” and answers “Yep.”
In his apology, Maggio said that “During my life, I have prided myself in treating all fairly and with respect, both personally and professionally . . . My friends, family and colleagues know me and can appropriately attest to how I have treated others. I stand by their opinion and regret letting them down.”
This is not the first ethical controversy for Mastio. He was previously sanctioned for using campaign funds for personal expenses and was accused of using some type of badge to avoid a speeding ticket. He was first appointed by then Gov. Mike Huckabee. He is a former prosecutor. He is not a graduate of LSU however. He has an undergraduate degree from Millsaps College in Mississippi in 1983. He attended law school at University of Mississippi for three years but actually received his J.D. from University of Arkansas at Little Rock in 1989.
The adoption discussion clearly crosses the line where Maggio refers to inside knowledge. Moreover even his anonymous handle, Geauxjudge, refers to being a judge.
Putting aside the adoption disclosures (which necessarily trigger an ethics investigation), I am more interested in the other discussion involving public controversies. Should a judge be held accountable for such anonymous comments even if they are racist or homophobic? I am concerned about free speech implication of such discipline, particularly when someone has used the right of anonymity. I can see the right of individuals in using information to reveal his identity (and such views being weighed by voters). However, the involvement of the bar raises the question of whether it should set aside the majority of comments and only focus on the alleged disclosure of confidential information. I certainly do not like the inclusion of “judge” in the anonymous handle or the references to legal proceedings. However, this case could allow for some usual lines to be drawn between judicial ethics and free speech.
What do you think?
If the judge wanted to remain anonymous he should not have left enough private details about his life that resulting in piecing together his identity (at least that is how I understand he was “outed”) This was not the case of an ISP or a blog moderator disclosing the judge’s identity.
For the women out there. Would you want this a–hole making decisions about your divorce?
You left out the comment where this guy jokes about “rodeo sex,” which is a form of rape. Free speech notwithstanding, you cannot have a judge in a position of power over peoples’ lives (predicated on his impartiality) when it is now public knowledge that he thinks (among other things) that wives are fundamentally dependent financially and are obligated to have sex with their husbands on demand, and that the crime of rape is funny and normal.
fauxjudge ,,,
Official Comment [2]: A judge should expect to be the subject of public scrutiny that might be viewed as burdensome if applied to other citizens, and must accept the restrictions imposed by the Code
======================================================
has anyone ever pointed this out to scalia?
When I started using the computer to communicate I adopted a rule for content: Would I be ok with what I’ve said being on page 1 of the NY Times? Now, there is no way anyone cares that much for what I say, but it does give me pause and sometimes emails or blog comments get deleted rather than sent. It might be a good rule for others to consider.
In my view the use of an alias, specifically not one assuming the identity of another, is the preferred way for public officials to make personal comments if they are concerned of an ethical conflict.
In their power over a defendant, a jury and judge are interosculant. If a judge has to reveal anonymous comments, written in haste, anger, or passion, then so to a jury.
Will this lead to an ‘anonymous commenter’ disqualifying box on a future jury summons?
Check
This judge violated his code of ethics and should be held responsible. Judges do have an added ethical duty when they are speaking in public and this judge crossed the line. It is too bad the Supreme Court justices aren’t held to the same ethical standard.
My comment should be judge by a jury of my peers. Not moderated by a machine or censored by a human, This is supposed to be a constitutional blog.
The key issue isn’t whether officials or public figures in general ought to be able to rely on the protections afforded by anonymity, or whether their free speech rights are infringed if they’re subjected to professional disciplinary proceedings (or simply to public disapproval) based on disclosure. Rather, it’s whether judges are by the nature of their office differently placed than other public figures, so that any deference we would normally give to the poster’s desire to speak anonymously is outweighed by the public interest in ensuring the integrity of the bench, and in maintaining the public confidence in our judiciary.
And I think the answer to that question may be a reluctant yes. Judges are expected to be impartial in their application of the law and their conduct of the matters before them, in a way that other public figures are not. When their comments, including (and perhaps especially) their comments off what they expect to be the public record, indicate that their judgement is affected by deeply-held beliefs about the capacities and appropriate roles of women, racial or ethnic minorities, etc., it strikes at the integrity of the entire judicial system. Ideally, you wouldn’t have judges with this kind of bias on the bench — you wouldn’t impanel a juror who admitted to biases of this sort in any case where it might make a difference, and why would you feel otherwise about a judge? — no matter how much deference you gave the free speech rights of individuals. If we don’t hold judges to the same standard, why should anyone have even marginal confidence that the justice system will deliver a fair result?
Of course this should be outed. Opinions like these can have a direcft effect on his “impartial” rulings. Even the asshole juristi in question knew he was wrong. Why else would he withdraw?
On the one hand he should have the same right as the rest of us. on the other I think knowing he was the one who wrote these postings would necessitate a look at his rulings to see if his apparent prejudices and biases effected his decisions.
Privacy…. If he meant to remain private and is not doing anything illegal then leave him the F$@; alone….
As we all know, those who are anonymous tend to be nastier. Having worked in a juvenile court, where all proceedings are confidential, I find it particularly disgusting this guy betrayed that confidentiality. In my mind, betraying that trust, forfeited his right to confidentiality. Karma is a b!tch.
Disclosing confidential information about the actress is criminal. No doubt it came full circle to bite him in the ass, though personally I think some prison time would be far more appropriate.
There seems to be a divide where sometimes we expect judges and (other) elected officials to behave better than everyone else, to be god-like, but at other times we want to be judged and ruled by our peers – who are just as goofy as we are. In truth judges and elected officials do not, on average, behave better than the rest of us. Why pretend that they do?
I find that everything I wanted to say has been said by bigfatmike.
I have to question whether the usual privacy standards, which I support, should apply to public officials making comments in public media on issues that might reflect on their official conduct.
I think it is important to distinguish communications intended to be private, such a an email to a specific individual, and comments made for public consumption, such as on a blog.
One approach might be that judges have a right to make the comments using a pseudonym but they also may be held accountable for the public comments if they are identified.
Accountability might ranged from recusal in some cases to removal from office if privileged information regarding cases were revealed.
More generally, such comments might be considered an indicator of a lack of judicial temperament and lack of suitability for office.
This kind of ‘outing’ makes me nervous. One of the prime ethical rules of the internet is that you don’t reveal the meatworld identity of folks, even if you know it. Being a celebrity or elected official should not make a difference if they choose to remain anonymous.