SCOOP: Leslie Lewis cyberstalking trial set to begin today amid free speech and accountability questions
Court filings and a Cops & Congress investigation expose disparities and first amendment implications in Rutherford County case.
To my new subscribers (and a reminder to loyal readers), welcome to Cops & Congress, where facts come first, followed by in-depth commentary and analysis. Paid subscribers enjoy exclusive access to scoops requiring investigation of public records. Your support directly funds the detailed research behind my independent journalism. (ICYMI: Six reasons to support my independent journalism)
Situational awareness: An exclusive, or scoop is an important news story that is first reported by a journalist. This goes beyond breaking news when no other journalists are known to be reporting on an important issue.
News & Commentary
The defense claims the case is an attempt to silence public criticism
The trial of Leslie Lewis, accused of cyberstalking Suzanne Porter, executive director of the United Way of Rutherford County (and newly appointed DSS Board member), begins today amid allegations of financial misconduct and claims of free speech violations. The case has sparked heated debates on social media about protecting individuals from harassment and safeguarding public accountability.
Lewis’s defense argues the charges, tied to public posts and a private message, are retaliatory and aim to silence scrutiny of United Way’s use of government funds. Meanwhile, District Attorney Ted Bell has dismissed Lewis’s concerns as “conspiracy theories.” Bell criticized journalists covering the issue as publishing “amateur online blogs.”
This trial isn’t just about online conduct—it’s a litmus test for how far public officials and institutions can go to quell dissent. I plan to watch the proceedings to see whether the court prioritizes justice or inadvertently sets a chilling precedent for free speech in Rutherford County. Stay tuned for updates as this complex legal battle unfolds.
Opinion & analysis
Cops & Congress Commentary: Is justice on trial in Rutherford County?
At first glance, this might seem like an open-and-shut case of online harassment. But a closer look reveals a troubling narrative about free speech, accountability, and the misuse of public institutions to silence dissent.
The charges against Lewis hinge on four communications—three public Facebook posts and a single message sent directly to Porter. While Porter claims these statements were false and intended to harass, Lewis’s defense argues otherwise: That the statements were true and made to expose alleged financial misconduct at the United Way. The defense’s evidence includes affidavits from former United Way employees, who reportedly corroborate Lewis’s concerns about the misuse of government funds.
Kamicia Griffin, a Peer Support Specialist for the United Way, has shed light on the alleged mismanagement and misuse of government funding within the organization. Despite claims by Porter that the United Way provided peer support services to a large segment of the community, Kamicia, and her husband, Christopher Griffin, who also worked there were often unable to fulfill their role. The United Way, she said, had only “around ten clients,” despite significant funding secured to aid those in need. Instead of supporting clients in mental health and substance abuse recovery, the Griffins were frequently used as a transportation service, instructed to drive clients to appointments, retrieve prescriptions, and pick up food from shelters, they said. Their role was limited to logistical tasks, with no engagement in the mentorship and emotional support that Peer Support Specialists are supposed to provide, according to the court filing.
Kamicia Griffin’s affidavit also highlights troubling internal practices at the United Way of Rutherford County under the direction of Porter, such as the misuse of food resources, unfulfilled promises of community support services, and Porter’s focus on creating a “superficial image of supporting Black clients to secure minority-based grants.” She and her husband were the only Black employees at the United Way and were subjected to unique requirements like staying together at all times during transportation and being denied office keys, Griffin said. Their termination was abrupt and unjustified as they started asking questions, she said. Griffin feared potential retaliation after Porter pressed cyberstalking charges against Lewis. She said she believes that exposing these practices is essential to prevent the continued diversion of crucial resources away from Rutherford County's vulnerable populations.
If the claims of financial misconduct are accurate, then this trial represents something far more concerning than a dispute over social media. It is a chilling reminder of how power can be used to suppress questions of public concern. Porter and Bell have chosen to bring what should be a matter of public accountability into a criminal court, where the goal seems to be not just to prosecute Lewis but to silence her entirely.
The Chilling Effect
Porter’s allegations have already sent a message to the community: Challenge authority at your peril. The defense argues that D.A. Bell has gone a step further by attempting to prevent Lewis from presenting evidence supporting the truth of her statements, effectively hamstringing her ability to defend herself. If Porter’s claims rest on the assumption that Lewis’s statements were false, shouldn’t the court allow Lewis to demonstrate their accuracy?
Bell’s dismissive comments about Lewis’s concerns being “conspiracy theories” and his public attacks on independent journalists covering the case raise further questions about whether this prosecution is genuinely about justice—or simply about protecting Porter and the United Way from scrutiny.
The role of the courts
This case also raises critical questions about the role of the judicial system in matters of public interest. By framing Lewis’s posts and inquiries as harassment, Porter and Bell have attempted to shift the conversation away from public accountability and into the courtroom, where the stakes for individuals speaking out are exponentially higher.
Should the court entertain this case (the defense filed a motion to dismiss), it risks setting a dangerous precedent: That those in positions of power can use the criminal justice system to quash dissent and intimidate whistleblowers.
The community's responsibility
As citizens, we must ask ourselves: What is the proper forum for addressing concerns of financial misconduct in public institutions? Should it be a court of law, or should it be a court of public opinion? When public officials and nonprofit leaders wield their influence to silence critics, they erode the very trust they are meant to uphold.
This trial is not just about Leslie Lewis. It is about the right of every citizen to ask hard questions, to demand transparency, and to hold those in power accountable without fear of retribution.
The court has an opportunity to do the right thing: Dismiss these charges and allow the community to address these questions in the open forum they deserve. The first amendment freedoms are enshrined in the constitution. In my view, anything less undermines the principles of democracy and justice that our society is built upon.
Want to learn more? Click here to read the court documents obtained by Cops & Congress.
Editor’s note: All mentions of “United Way” refer to the United Way of Rutherford County, NC.
🏛️ All those mentioned are presumed innocent until proven guilty.
Learn more about this newsletter and my background. I am guided by the Society for Professional Journalists Code of Ethics. Follow me on X (Twitter), Facebook, Linkedin, Instagram, TikTok, and YouTube. Send constructive criticism, fan mail and tips with public documents for future stories: CopsandCongress@gmail.com.
(Free subscribers: Upgrade to paid to leave a comment below and don’t miss out on exclusive content.)
Good work, Annie. I am one of the amateur bloggers this Republican DA speaks of. Why is the Republican Party the most prominent opponent of free speech in this state? Speaks volumes