When Gene Stilp, an outspoken crusader for reforming state government, held a press conference to announce his plan to file a complaint against state House leaders, the Pennsylvania Ethics Commission dismissed it without investigating.

Instead, the commission investigated Mr. Stilp, eventually fining him $500 for violating the Ethics Act, which prohibited any public disclosure of information related to complaints filed before it.

Talk about gagging free speech.

The act's requirement was absurdly restrictive, and Mr. Stilp was right to challenge it in court. On Thursday, a panel of three federal appeals court judges ruled in his favor, saying the restriction cannot be enforced. It was the second court decision that went Mr. Stilp's way. A year ago, a U.S. District Court judge said the same thing and granted a preliminary injunction against it.

In writing for the appellate court, Senior U.S. Third Circuit Judge Jane Roth said, "A blanket prohibition on disclosure of a filed complaint stifles political speech near the core of the First Amendment." Further, she said the rule "impairs the public's ability to evaluate whether the Ethics Commission is properly fulfilling its statutory mission to investigate alleged violations of the Ethics Act."

That's just what Mr. Stilp alleged when he took his argument to court. It's a good thing he spoke up.

Cartoonist Rob Rogers does "Rob's Rough," an early look at his work and his creative process, exclusively at PG+, a members-only web site of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. Our introduction to PG+ gives you all the details.