Indiana Man Did Not Threaten Officials by Posting “86” on Facebook Lee-Lawmaster 86 First Amendment Lawsuit, ACLU Says

A Monroe County, Indiana man typed a two-digit number on some politicians’ Facebook pages. Days later, a state investigator showed up at his front door and told him he could be indicted. Now the ACLU is suing — and the case is drawing direct comparisons to the federal prosecution of former FBI Director James Comey.

What Lee Lawmaster Posted and Why

Lee Lawmaster posted “86” on the official Facebook pages of several Indiana elected officials, including Attorney General Todd Rokita, Lieutenant Governor Micah Beckwith, and U.S. Senator Jim Banks. None of his posts included threats or calls for violence.

The posts came after the indictment of former FBI Director James Comey, who was prosecuted for posting a photo on social media showing seashells arranged to depict “86 47.” Lawmaster was incensed by what he saw as the prosecution of protected speech, and he used “86” to express his own opposition to certain elected officials and his belief that they should be removed from office.

The ACLU argues the number means exactly what Lawmaster intended. “86” has long been shorthand for “get rid of,” but since Comey used it in an Instagram post apparently referencing President Trump, critics have pointed to a less common secondary definition — “to kill.”

The Investigator Who Showed Up at His Door

On May 1, 2026, Kurt Spivey, director of investigations for the Indiana Attorney General’s office, came to Lawmaster’s home to question him about the posts. During the encounter, Spivey told Lawmaster his posts had “crossed the line,” warned that the office “could easily indict you over this today,” and instructed him to “tone it down a little bit.”

Spivey added that he hoped they could “come to an agreement that we kind of tone down the political rhetoric a little bit.” He then pointed to the Comey case and said, “Listen, if Comey was indicted, we could easily indict you over this today.” Under questioning, Lawmaster indicated he understood. Spivey responded, “Now, hopefully, we don’t have to come back.”

The two-minute encounter was captured on Lawmaster’s doorbell camera, recording both audio and video.

The Chilling Effect, He Stopped Posting Entirely

After being confronted at his home and warned he could be indicted, Lawmaster stopped posting “86” comments and ceased commenting on elected officials’ social media pages altogether — out of fear of criminal prosecution.

That outcome is exactly what the ACLU says the First Amendment forbids. Ken Falk, legal director for the ACLU of Indiana, put it plainly: “If someone who’s law enforcement says you could be indicted right now if you do this again, people aren’t going to do it again. And when that thing that they’re not doing again is exercising their First Amendment rights, that is very serious.”

Related article: Iowa and Missouri Sue New York Over Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule That Reaches Across State Lines

The ACLU Lawsuit and What It Seeks

The lawsuit was filed May 7 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana. It names Lawmaster as plaintiff and Spivey as the defendant, both in his individual and official capacities. Lawmaster is requesting a jury trial.

The ACLU filed a motion for a preliminary injunction to prevent Spivey from taking any adverse action against Lawmaster over the “86” posts. The ACLU maintained that “86” is not a menacing term but rather slang meaning “throw out,” “get rid of,” or “refuse service to” — and that Lawmaster was exercising his First Amendment right to urge that elected officials be removed from office because he disagreed with their policies.

The lawsuit asks the court to declare that Spivey violated Lawmaster’s First Amendment rights and to block Spivey from taking action against Lawmaster over past or future “86” posts. It also seeks compensatory, nominal, and punitive damages, plus attorney fees.

Beyond Lawmaster’s case, the ACLU sees the case as an opportunity to learn how widespread this practice is within the Attorney General’s office — and whether Spivey acted independently or under direction.

The AG’s Office Responds

A statement from Rokita’s office said: “With death threats against elected officials being very prominent across the nation and in our state, the Attorney General and his family are a top target. There are right now two people being tried in separate Marion County cases for making violent death threats against the Attorney General. This is real, and our office takes true threats extremely seriously.”

The office’s spokesperson also questioned why this particular post was singled out from thousands of similar comments, saying: “If this office wanted to freeze political speech, why would this be the one comment out of the thousands of haters that we picked?”

The Comey Case That Started It All

Comey posted a beach photo on Instagram in May 2025 showing shells forming the numbers “86 47,” with the caption “Cool shell formation on my beach walk.” Republicans and administration officials immediately condemned it as a death threat against President Trump, who is the 47th president.

A federal grand jury in North Carolina indicted Comey on April 28, 2026 on two charges: threats against the president and transmitting a threat in interstate commerce. Prosecutors argued that a reasonable recipient would interpret the post as a serious expression of intent to do harm.

Legal experts noted the government faces a high bar, because under a 2023 Supreme Court ruling, prosecutors must show the individual understood their message would be perceived as threatening — a difficult standard to meet over a commonly used slang term.

Even some Republican senators questioned the case. Sen. Thom Tillis of North Carolina said: “If this whole case is based on a picture in the sand of a North Carolina beach, it again makes no sense to me.”

A Key Legal Limit: The AG’s Office Cannot Prosecute

One important legal fact that cuts against the threat Lawmaster received: investigators with the Indiana Attorney General’s office generally do not have police powers, and the office generally cannot initiate criminal prosecutions. It holds only limited concurrent jurisdiction with local prosecutors — covering specific situations such as homicide resulting from an unlawful assembly, consumer protection, and public corruption by elected officials.

In other words, the indictment threat Spivey made may not have been one he had the legal authority to carry out.

For more on how courts draw the line between protected political speech and criminal threats, see our related coverage :How To Claim A Lawsuit Settlement? Guide To Getting Paid.

Frequently Asked Questions

What does “86” actually mean?

 The term has been common American slang for decades, typically meaning to remove, reject, or get rid of something or someone. It appears in restaurant kitchens, bars, and everyday speech. A secondary meaning — to kill — is far less common and disputed.

Can the Indiana Attorney General’s office actually indict someone? 

Generally, no. The office cannot initiate criminal prosecutions and investigators do not have standard police powers, except within the Medicaid Fraud Control Unit and a narrow set of exceptions involving public corruption and consumer protection.

What is a “true threat” under the law?

 A true threat is a statement where a speaker means to communicate a serious intent to commit violence against a specific person. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2023 that prosecutors must also show the speaker knew their message could be perceived as threatening — not just that a “reasonable person” might fear it.

What relief is Lawmaster seeking?

 He is asking the court to declare his First Amendment rights were violated, block Spivey from taking any action against him for “86” posts or other protected speech, and award compensatory, nominal, and punitive damages plus attorney fees.

Prepared by the AllAboutLawyer.com Editorial Team and reviewed for factual accuracy against verified court filings and news sources on May 19, 2026. Last Updated: May 19, 2026

Disclaimer: This article is for general informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Laws vary by state and jurisdiction. For advice about your specific situation, consult a qualified attorney.