Blogger Paul Boyne Faces 18 Connecticut Felonies Over Controversial Posts

Free speech or criminal threat? Boyne's case pits his right to rant against the state's duty to protect judges.

Published on Feb. 17, 2026

Got story updates? Submit your updates here. ›

Journalist Paul Boyne sits in a Connecticut jail cell, accused of blogging words that prosecutors deem criminal. His crime, as he tells it: speaking his mind about powerful people. Boyne's incendiary posts railed against what he calls a 'Jewish cabal' running Connecticut's family courts and floated conspiracies about everything from President John F. Kennedy's assassination to Israel's secret nuclear program. The content is fringe, even offensive – slurs, hyperbole, violent imagery – but Boyne insists it's protected speech under the First Amendment. Authorities claim Boyne crossed a line into true threats and hate speech by singling out judges (several of them Jewish) with vicious ridicule and talk of bullets. Boyne's retort: it was opinionated 'op-ed' style criticism, however harsh. His case pits an outraged blogger's brash rants against a state bent on punishing speech it deems dangerous.

Why it matters

This case highlights the blurred lines between extreme rhetoric and criminal threat, and whether the First Amendment protects even the most abhorrent commentary from being silenced by the government. Boyne and his supporters say yes - that punishing him for words (no matter how ugly) guts America's core free expression values. Prosecutors say Boyne's particular words cross into unprotected territory, especially given the anti-Semitic themes. The showdown is underway: Is Paul Boyne a criminal loudmouth - or a canary in the coal mine for free speech?

The details

Boyne is no stranger to controversy. His writings are rife with conspiracy tropes and bigoted barbs. He's called Connecticut's family court 'the most evil court in the land,' controlled by 'monsters,' even dubbing it 'a Jewish enterprise designed to destroy the rights of a sovereign people.' On his blog, Boyne didn't just criticize judges - he fantasized about them meeting violent ends. In one post, he wrote, 'Judge Gerard Adelman gets a .50 cal to the head,' accusing Adelman and other 'Jews of Connecticut' of hijacking the courts and begging for violent retribution. He published an imagined assassination scenario of Judge Eric Coleman, musing about a sniper shot 'from the grassy knoll' through the judge's window or a 'high capacity magazine in a dark alley,' even urging to 'burn the courthouse to the ground.' Boyne contends he was simply sounding off, however offensively, about what he sees as deep corruption, not making literal threats.

  • In 2007, Boyne went through a contentious divorce and custody battle in Connecticut family court.
  • In 2017, Boyne started the blog TheFamilyCourtCircus.com, where he began publishing his incendiary posts.
  • In 2021, Connecticut enacted tougher laws on harassment and threats, especially those with a bias element.
  • In mid-2023, Connecticut authorities arrested Boyne on 18 counts of electronic stalking and harassment.

The players

Paul Boyne

A 62-year-old Navy veteran-turned-blogger who is facing 18 felony counts in Connecticut for his controversial blog posts.

Judge Gerard Adelman

A Connecticut family court judge who Boyne has repeatedly criticized and made violent threats against on his blog.

Judge Eric Coleman

A Connecticut family court judge who Boyne has also made violent threats against on his blog.

Connecticut Prosecutors

State authorities who have charged Boyne with 18 felony counts of electronic stalking and harassment, arguing his blog posts crossed the line into unprotected threats.

First Amendment Advocates

Civil liberties experts and free speech advocates who argue that Boyne's prosecution sets a dangerous precedent for criminalizing dissent and unpopular speech.

Got photos? Submit your photos here. ›

What they’re saying

“I never pointed a gun at anyone. I put words on a website.”

— Paul Boyne

“If joking about shooting the president was deemed protected speech, why not my over-the-top broadsides against judges? If you can joke about a .50 cal and Obama, why not judges?”

— Paul Boyne

“They charged me because Judge Grossman doesn't like reading about herself on the blog.”

— Paul Boyne

“Maybe most people find it crazy. Maybe it is crazy. But since when do we jail people for their theories about history?”

— Paul Boyne

“Connecticut courts aren't just corrupt - they're incompetent. And I'm going to prove it.”

— Paul Boyne

What’s next

The judge in the case will decide on February 17 whether or not to allow Paul Boyne to be released on bond again as he awaits trial.

The takeaway

This case highlights the tension between free speech protections and the government's duty to prevent threats and harassment, especially when the speech in question contains offensive, anti-Semitic, and violent rhetoric. The outcome could set an important precedent on the boundaries of protected speech in the digital age.