A Denver County Court judge sentenced 53-year-old Regan Benson to 60 days in jail and two years of probation on Friday after a jury found her guilty of posting a police commander's home address during a livestream, what appears to be the first prosecution under Colorado's anti-doxing statute.
Judge Isaam Shamsid-Deen did not mince words from the bench. He told the courtroom that Benson "purposely and willfully disrespects the law" and ordered her taken into custody immediately, denying a defense request to delay jailing until the following week.
The case traces back to September 3, 2025, when Benson, a vocal police critic and self-described advocate for the homeless with roughly 24,000 YouTube followers, livestreamed outside a Denver police station. During the broadcast, she asked her followers to dig up the home address of a Denver police commander, read the address aloud once they found it, and suggested there should be a "pig roast" at his home.
One week later, Denver police obtained a warrant for her arrest. The charge: posting personal information of a protected person online, a Class 1 misdemeanor under Colorado law.
A Denver jury convicted Benson in March. Her defense attorney, Jamie Hubbard, argued that posting the officer's home address did not constitute an imminent threat and therefore did not violate the law. Hubbard called Colorado's anti-doxing statute unconstitutional and maintained Benson was exercising her First Amendment rights during the livestream.
Benson herself dismissed the "pig roast" remark as "a joke, hyperbole" with no malicious intent and no direct threat.
The jury disagreed. And Benson's conduct after the verdict did not help her case at sentencing. Immediately following her conviction, she went live again on YouTube, called the jury "stupid," declared the judge biased, and, in the judge's words, reiterated her contempt for the criminal justice system.
Judge Shamsid-Deen initially sought to impose a 90-day jail term. Prosecutor Jonah Karls informed him that 90 days exceeded his legal authority for the charge. The judge reduced the sentence to 60 days, the apparent maximum, plus two years of probation.
The judge said he needed to send a message that would deter Benson and her YouTube followers from doxing law enforcement officers in the future. He pointed to Benson's post-conviction livestream as evidence she had shown no accountability.
"The court finds the defendant has no respect for the law."
That was Shamsid-Deen's blunt assessment. He ordered Benson into custody on the spot, though he allowed her to post a $3,000 bond that would let her remain free while her appeal proceeds. Benson's husband, Bo Benson, told reporters Friday evening that he hoped to post bond that night and expected his wife to be released shortly after.
Hubbard, Benson's attorney, framed the prosecution as politically motivated. She compared the case to the federal indictment of former FBI Director James Comey, who was charged over a May 2025 Instagram post showing seashells arranged to spell "8647", a reference to the 47th president.
Hubbard told reporters she found the parallel alarming:
"It is offensive to me and scary that our prosecutors in Denver are doing the same thing the Department of Justice is doing under this administration."
She also said:
"I feel very strongly now is not the time for the Denver District Attorney to be targeting people like Regan Benson who hold our law enforcement officers accountable."
The comparison is a stretch. Comey's case involves a coded social media post that prosecutors interpreted as a threat against the president. Benson's case involves reading a specific officer's home address to thousands of viewers and suggesting a gathering at his residence. The officer told authorities he feared for the safety of himself and his family. Those are different categories of conduct, whatever one thinks of either prosecution.
The broader pattern of left-leaning activists facing legal consequences for conduct at politically charged events is not unique to Denver. A federal grand jury recently indicted three members of one family for assaulting a reporter at a Minneapolis ICE protest, another case where political passion crossed into criminal behavior.
Denver District Attorney John Walsh issued a written statement after the sentencing that rejected the defense's framing. Walsh said he supported free speech but drew a clear line:
"I have always, and always will, vigorously support all Coloradans' First Amendment expression. But in this case, as a jury of Denverites found beyond a reasonable doubt, the defendant's conduct clearly stepped across the line."
That distinction matters. Benson has livestreamed hundreds of times. She has built a following criticizing Denver police. None of that landed her in court. What landed her in court was broadcasting a specific officer's home address to an audience of thousands and floating the idea of showing up there.
There is a difference between holding police accountable and putting an officer's family at risk. A jury of Denver residents, not a panel of law enforcement insiders, heard the evidence and drew that line.
The case also raises questions about how institutions respond when left-wing activism shades into conduct that endangers individuals. Similar questions arise when criminal charges follow politically charged confrontations, as happened recently with the indictment of protesters who attacked a conservative journalist.
Hubbard said Benson will appeal. The constitutional challenge to Colorado's anti-doxing statute could make this case significant beyond Denver. If a court strikes down the law, it would leave officers, and potentially other public servants, without legal protection against the deliberate broadcasting of their home addresses to hostile audiences.
Benson's supporters will frame this as a free speech case. But the First Amendment has never protected conduct designed to direct a crowd toward someone's home. Incitement, true threats, and speech integral to criminal conduct all fall outside constitutional protection. Whether Benson's livestream fits those categories is a legal question an appellate court will now have to answer.
What is not in question is the sequence of events. Benson asked her audience to find an officer's address. They found it. She read it aloud. She suggested a gathering at his home. The officer feared for his family's safety. A jury convicted her. And when the verdict came down, she went right back online and called the jurors "stupid."
The judge saw all of that. He concluded Benson had shown zero accountability. He gave her the maximum sentence he could.
The left has spent years insisting that speech can be harmful, that words directed at vulnerable people carry real-world consequences. Institutions from teachers unions to advocacy groups have poured resources into policing language they deem dangerous. Yet when an activist broadcasts a police officer's home address and suggests her followers show up, the defense cries First Amendment.
The principle cannot work only in one direction.
Benson's appeal will test Colorado's anti-doxing law in a higher court. If the statute survives, it sets a precedent for prosecuting anyone who deliberately publishes the personal information of protected persons online. If it falls, the message to every officer in Colorado is clear: your home address is fair game for anyone with a camera and an audience.
For now, a Denver jury and a Denver judge have spoken. They looked at the facts, heard the arguments, and decided that what Benson did was not political speech, it was a crime.
When accountability finally arrives, it tends to be the people who spent years demanding it for everyone else who are most surprised to find it applies to them, too.
