Washington — A federal judge has reinstated the computer monitoring condition for Daniel Goodwyn, a San Francisco web designer convicted of involvement in the January 6 Capitol riots, emphasizing the need for vigilance as the next presidential election nears. Goodwyn, a self-described member of the Proud Boys, was originally sentenced to 60 days in jail followed by a year of supervised probation, which is due to conclude in August 2023.
Goodwyn pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor charge of entering and remaining in a restricted building during the turmoil at the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021. The attack, which saw a mob breach the building, temporarily halted the certification of electoral votes favoring President Joe Biden and was fueled by baseless claims of electoral fraud propagated by then-President Donald Trump.
In a hearing conducted via video, U.S. District Judge Reggie B. Walton expressed concerns that Goodwyn continued to engage in inflammatory rhetoric similar to that which incited the violence on January 6. Walton highlighted the importance of preventing any such future incidents, particularly with the upcoming election. “I don’t want to chill anyone’s First Amendment rights,” Walton stated. However, he reiterated the need to balance these rights against public safety requirements.
The decision to monitor Goodwyn’s computer use had been contested. In February, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia had ruled that Walton erred in imposing the monitoring condition without adequately demonstrating its necessity. The appellate court returned the case to Judge Walton for further review, leading to the recent hearing where arguments from both sides were reconsidered.
Prosecutors maintained that monitoring was essential due to Goodwyn’s continued dissemination of misleading information and incendiaries online. They cited instances where Goodwyn targeted law enforcement officers and engaged with extremist content. Assistant U.S. Attorney Brian Brady argued that monitoring tools and AI technology could help focus on potentially harmful rhetoric without overly infringing on legitimate speech.
On the other hand, Carolyn A. Stewart, Goodwyn’s attorney, criticized the decision as overly broad and detrimental to her client’s professional and personal life. Stewart, who plans to appeal the decision, argued that the imposed conditions were particularly onerous given that Goodwyn’s original offense did not involve the use of a computer. She further contended that such measures set a dangerous precedent that could impact the rights of other defendants under similar conditions.
During his probation hearing, Goodwyn did not provide any statements, choosing instead to observe the proceedings.
The renewed decision to monitor Goodwyn’s online activities underscores the ongoing challenges and debates surrounding the balance of security and civil liberties in the aftermath of the January 6 attack. With political tensions still high, the judiciary remains a critical arbiter in defining the boundaries of acceptable conduct for those convicted of related crimes.
Going forward, the case may also influence how courts handle similar situations involving digital surveillance and freedom of expression, making it a significant point of reference as the nation moves closer to another electoral cycle.