New York Times Article Falsely Claims That Legal Schnauzer Case Raises First Amendment Questions

This is Carol, Roger's wife. The headline on The New York Times article says the Legal Schnauzer case raises questions about the first amendment. One sentence in the article says that the case makes for "an exceptionally messy test of constitutional law." But the article as a whole does not say that at all. In fact, the article states that the case really is about judicial incompetence and corruption in an Alabama courthouse. 

Every legal expert cited by The Times says that Alabama Circuit Judge Claud Neilson has ruled unlawfully in the Legal Schnauzer case, resulting in the incarceration of publisher Roger Shuler. None of the experts says that the case raises new issues regarding the first amendment. A 2012 Virginia case called Dietz v. Perez states unequivocally that a preliminary injunction in an alleged defamation case is unlawful under the first amendment. The facts and procedure of the Schnauzer case are almost identical to Dietz, and that means that Shuler's incarceration is unlawful and he is due to be released immediately.

"This case really is about unlawful actions in an Alabama courtroom." Shuler said. "The first amendment has been rock-solid for roughly 230 years and the Dietz case shows that it's still very much intact and nothing in my case raises new issues regarding the first amendment. It simply is a matter of a rogue judge who has so far gotten away with making rulings that go way outside the law."