SALT LAKE CITY (ABC4) — A Tennessee man is about to be $835,000 richer, thanks to a lawsuit settlement from the state that ruled he is not at fault for a meme he posted about Charlie Kirk’s killing. A University of Utah law professor is weighing in on the legal precedent.

61-year-old retired police officer Larry Bushart of Tennessee was jailed for 37 days following a meme he posted about the assassination of conservative activist Charlie Kirk. After his lawsuit against the state was settled on Tuesday, he will be $835,000 richer.

Bushart’s post to Facebook read: “This seems relevant today…” Attached was a photo of President Trump with the words, “We have to get over it,” which he is quoted as saying in 2024 after a school shooting at Iowa’s Perry High School. Bushart reportedly refused to take down the post and was arrested later in September.

Critically, Perry County Sheriff Nick Weems said that most of Bushart’s memes were lawful free speech, but he had sent an officer to arrest the poster because residents reportedly felt alarmed that a local school was being threatened.

To better understand the precedent behind Bushart’s case, which has drawn national attention, ABC4.com spoke with Clifford Rosky, a law professor at the University of Utah. According to him, this area of First Amendment law is simple and well-known.

“The government can’t throw someone in jail, for example, because they don’t like the opinion that they expressed. They don’t like what they said. This case does appear to be that kind of case,” Rosky said.

He continued, “The settlement suggests that that’s how both parties ultimately saw it, that this man said things that were clearly offensive and maybe probably designed to offend, but that’s not a crime. And the Supreme Court has said many times that the free speech clause protects the speech that we hate as well as the speech that we love.”

Bushart’s acquittal means that a judge found that his post hadn’t crossed the threshold of what’s known as a true threat or criminal incitement, according to Rosky. He added that those exceptions to First Amendment protections are defined in the Constitution in a very narrow way.

“That’s the key, is intentionally causing fear. So obviously, there was some question about whether this man in Tennessee said anything that fell into one of those categories. And apparently, it looks like the answer was no,” Rosky said.

While rulings like this are common, Rosky said that it’s not normal for a government official to see speech they personally don’t like and attempt to censor it. What’s more, is that attempting to censor the speech by throwing someone in jail is extreme— but not unheard of.

Rosky acknowledged that tensions are high in the country for school shootings, and an assassination of a public figure to boot certainly didn’t help on September 10. Still, he said, there’s a big distinction between saying something the government doesn’t like and saying something that indicates danger to others.

“It’s not like it’s never happened before in our country, because when someone has power, it’s tempting to say, ‘Well, I think what you did is terrible, and so there must be some law that you broke,’” Rosky explained. “It sounds like there may have been, at some point, some argument made on behalf of the police department that one of his posts was like an implicit threat. It sounds like the police department ultimately abandoned that argument when they issued, you know, an $800,000 check.”

There is still reason to be optimistic, however. According to Rosky, challenges to free speech have occurred since the country’s founding, and the government has sought to interfere with citizens’ expression of ideas it disagrees with.

He explained, “We’ve been throwing people in jail and fining them and firing them from their jobs and all kinds of other things to try to control what they say, but the nice thing is that as long as it has been happening, our courts have protected our freedom of speech and reminded the government of its responsibilities under the Constitution.”

A former Wyoming minister sued on claims he sexually abused three boys in the 1990s denies wrongdoing and says the boys — now men — haven’t overcome the state’s time limit on filing such lawsuits by saying they discovered the abuse roughly 30 years after it happened.

The three men in late March sued former Wyoming Catholic youth minister Doug Hudson, as well as the Catholic Diocese of Cheyenne and Our Lady of Fatima Church in Casper.

They accused the diocese and church of three variations of negligence and one breach of fiduciary duty; and Hudson of sexual assault/civil battery, and intentionally inflicting emotional distress. 

They are requesting at least $50,000 per plaintiff in damages.

Hudson filed his answer denying wrongdoing and asserting the men didn’t satisfy the statute of limitations on Wednesday.

The Timeline

Wyoming allows people to sue for sexual assault within eight years of an affected minor’s 18th birthday or three years after the discovery of the alleged abuse, whichever comes later.

The plaintiffs say they discovered the abuse in 2024. They don’t satisfy the “discovery rule” provision, Hudson’s Wednesday answer asserts.

The church and diocese also filed a joint motion asking the court to dismiss three of the four charges against them. 

That motion says the men have failed to establish the church system owed them particular duties of care when they were boys, the church and diocese had no indication Hudson was allegedly dangerous before he was hired, and there’s no real legal basis to support the idea that they were negligent in retaining Hudson.

Hudson’s attorney, Ryan Semerad, told Cowboy State Daily his client never hurt the three men, including when they were younger.

“Mr. Hudson is a good man who cares deeply for the Church, the faithful and the youth being brough tup in the Church,” wrote Semerad in a statement. “He unequivocally denies the allegations made against him. 

“He has never hurt a young person in his many years working with many young people in the Church and schools affiliated with the Church across America.”

Semerad added that his client “has faith that the truth will reveal he is innocent of the civil charges against him.”

“And,” the statement adds, “while this untrue lawsuit has upended his life and forced him out of the educational career he loved, he is praying for all involved in this matter.”

One of the plaintiffs’ attorneys, Dallas Laird, declined Wednesday to comment.

As to the men’s 2024 discovery of what they allegedly endured as kids, however, Laird told WyoFile that sometimes people “don’t discover what happened to them until they wonder why their life has gone the way it has, and they go to therapy.”

Back Up

The lawsuit complaint claims that in the 1990s, Hudson sexually assaulted the three boys. 

It also says the diocese, an umbrella organization for the church, failed to manage Hudson and protect the plaintiffs.

The document says the diocese and church housed Hudson in Casper for conducting youth services, and that both diocese and church knew Hudson was inviting minors to his house on campus.

Hudson disputes that.

“His housing area was upstairs and a communal area for youth activities was downstairs,” says Hudson’s answer. “He denies that he invited any minors to ‘his house’ as in his housing area upstairs, but admits that he generally allowed minors to visit the communal area downstairs at appropriate times.”

The complaint says — and Hudson acknowledges — that the late Father Pietro Philip Colibraro supervised Hudson at that time.

The diocese lists Colibraro among church authorities with “substantiated allegations” of sexual abuse on their records.

One adolescent male reported abuse by Colibraro in 2005, the diocese’s list says.

The complaint says Colibraro was warned that Hudson was “plying adolescent males with alcohol” but doesn’t say who reported that claim. 

It says Hudson sexually assaulted Anthony Jacobson in 1995, Ryan Axlund in 1997, and James Stress in 1996 or 1997, at a hotel during an off-campus trip.

The complaint alleges that Hudson gave Stress “copious” amounts of alcohol and sexually assaulted him.

Clair McFarland can be reached at clair@cowboystatedaily.com.

SAN FRANCISCO (KGO) — The California Department of Transportation is exploring the idea of a high-speed bus system that could travel between San Francisco and Los Angeles, offering an alternative form of transportation for travelers who frequently move between the two regions.

The concept, which remains in its early stages, envisions buses traveling at speeds of up to 140 miles per hour on state freeways. Caltrans officials describe the proposal as part of a broader effort to examine what it calls high-speed buses.

“I think it would be great. We need to build more infrastructure in the state of California,” said Jeff Fisher, a San Francisco resident.

In a recent presentation, Caltrans outlined potential routes and corridors that could support the system. Officials pointed to freeways such as the Harbor Freeway and the San Bernardino Freeway as possible starting points.

“Freeways with some infrastructure may be candidates to start such as the Harbor Freeway and the San Bernardino freeway. Or perhaps it would be best to start with the interregional service that can connect Los Angeles with San Diego and San Francisco Bay Area and Sacramento. That would favor I-5 and I-10 as the first freeways,” said Ryan Snyder, Caltrans feasibility studies manager.

MORE: California drops lawsuit seeking to reinstate federal funding for the state’s bullet train

The idea is already drawing interest from some travelers who regularly fly within the state.

“I think it would be a different form of transportation, and I think it might be more accessible,” said Katie Kim, a San Francisco resident who said she flies to Southern California three to four times a year.

“That would be a good idea maybe its faster,” said Arlette Contreras, a tourist.

MORE: Trump administration wants to hand out $2.4 billion it took from California’s high-speed railroad

However, transportation experts say the proposal would face some challenges, particularly in already congested corridors.

“Given the highly congested nature of that corridor on the interstate highways and really some of the secondary roadways, it would be critical that bus lanes would need to be additional lanes. They could not be in place of the existing lanes that people are already traveling on that are already highly congested,” said Rocky Moretti, director of policy and research with TRIP, a national transportation research nonprofit.

The proposal also comes as California spent more than $14 billion on a high-speed rail project intended to connect San Francisco and Los Angeles, according to the California High-Speed Rail Authority, something residents say remains top of mind as new transportation ideas are considered.

“Would love not to have to go through the airport. I’m just sort of skeptical that it will be able to work,” said Bradley Powles, a Hercules resident.

MORE: California Gov. Gavin Newsom signs bill requiring funding plan for state’s high-speed rail project

Caltrans has not provided cost estimates for the high-speed bus concept. A preliminary report noted that if the 140-mile-per-hour target proves infeasible due to cost, infrastructure or safety limitations, a slower speed of 80 to 100 miles per hour could serve as a practical alternative.

“Something that would be quicker and easier would be wonderful I hope it can be achieved,” Powles said.