Monday’s oral argument in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit on the validity of Judge Tanya Chutkan’s limited ban of defendant Donald Trump’s pretrial free speech rights underscores the uniquely problematic nature of the most important criminal prosecution in the nation’s history.
While Chutkan’s pretrial gag order was narrowly drawn to preclude only gangsterlike attacks on prosecutors, court staff, and trial witnesses—a much narrower ban than the government had sought—the former president’s lawyers argued that absent their client’s remarks having crossed any criminal lines, the First Amendment precludes imposition of the gag order. After a notably long 2½-hour debate about where such lines can and should be drawn, and the level of threat to witnesses that must be established before a gag order can be issued, the court adjourned to consider the matter.
To put it differently, the defense claims a gag order is only warranted after his speech causes harm to come to one of the people he attacks, even though it’s already known that it’s resulted in harassment and death threats. Apparently, the line in the sand for the defense is, “Somebody gets physically hurt or killed.” Of course, by then, it’s far too late.
These arguments are doomed in light of the exceptions to the First Amendment protections, not to mention the vast number of cases where gag orders were issued prophylactically.
Yeah, his free speech can be infringed upon if that speech is intended to incite imminent lawless action, which his speech has already been shown to do.
I mean, it’s a crime to threaten to kill someone, so no one has to actually get hurt for speech to be infringed upon.
His free speech is particularly infringible because he’s indicted and the speech at hand interacts directly with court procedure. If he weren’t under indictment, no question the gag order would not be allowed. His lawyers are trying to pretend his indictment doesn’t matter when it clearly does.
Underscores they are not just indifferent to stochastic violence, they see it as an outcome that would be a direct result of their speech and still don’t stop.
Would the defense like to tell the court what exactly Mr Trump would like to say, but cannot, due to the gag order? You know, so the judge can determine if its warranted.
