Freedom of speech
PROTECTED CONTENT
If you’re a current subscriber, log in below. If you would like to subscribe, please click the subscribe tab above.
Username and Password Help
Please enter your email and we will send you a password reset link.
Give me Liberty
Rodger Williamson
“Congress shall make no law… abridging the freedom of speech…” (First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution)
“Whoever would overthrow the liberty of a nation must begin by subduing the freeness of speech.” – Benjamin Franklin
“He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty, he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself.” – Thomas Paine
Four separate grand juries, each in a different jurisdiction, have indicted Donald Trump on various felony charges. The allegations in the charges range generally from fraudulent bookkeeping in New York, to espionage in Florida, to conspiracy to prevent the transfer of presidential power in Washington, D.C., to conspiracy to overturn an election in Georgia.
In all, Trump stands accused of having committed 91 distinct criminal acts. He denies all the allegations and has pleaded not guilty in each case. In this first case of four felony charges related to his effort to subvert the 2020 election, a federal judge has barred Donald Trump from attacking witnesses, prosecutors and court staff involved in his Washington, D.C., criminal case, imposing a gag order that escalates tension between Trump’s 2024 bid for the presidency and the realities of his status as a criminal defendant.
The order restricts Trump’s ability to publicly target court personnel, potential witnesses, or the special counsel and his staff. The order did not impose restrictions on disparaging comments about Washington, D.C. – where the jury will take place – or certain comments about the Justice Department at large, both of which the government requested.
“First Amendment protections yield to the administration of justice and to the protection of witnesses,” Judge Tanya Chutkan said Monday as she issued the gag order. “His presidential candidacy does not give him carte blanche to vilify … public servants who are simply doing their job.”
Judge Chutkan said during the hearing, “Mr. Trump is under the supervision of the criminal justice system, and he must follow his conditions of release,” adding that “he does not have the right to say and do exactly what he pleases. Do you agree with that?” she asked. Trump attorney John Lauro responded: “100%.”
Trump’s attorneys have attacked the proposed order as fundamentally antithetical to his First Amendment rights and suggested the order is simply a way for President Joe Biden and the Justice Department to hurt Trump’s ability to campaign. Lauro accused the special counsel’s office of trying “to prevent President Trump from speaking out about the issues of the day,” adding, “Every single issue that relates to this case also has political issues.”
Chutkan has scheduled Trump’s trial to begin on March 4 and emphasized Monday that the date would not change. Chutkan added, “If the message Mr. Trump wants to express is ‘my prosecution is politically motivated,’ he can do so without using ‘highly charged language.’”
Complying with Chutkan’s order will require a shift in Trump’s public demeanor, as he routinely uses his social media as a megaphone to assail the lead federal prosecutor, special counsel Jack Smith, as “deranged.” Trump also has taken to branding the lawyers working under Smith as “thugs.” Judge Chutkan stated that Trump’s comments “risk poisoning the proceedings.”
However, regardless whether Trump is a former actual president, or a current candidate, he is an American, and he, like you and I, are afforded “Freedom of Speech” as enshrined as the First Amendment to our U.S. Constitution.
The First Amendment, adopted on December 15, 1791, as one of the 10 amendments that constitute the Bill of Rights, prevents a governmental state actor from abridging a person’s freedom of speech. Unfortunately, “Case Law,” or the law as established by the outcome of former cases, backs up Judge Chutkan’s gag order. And therein lies the dilemma that I am having issues trying to wrap my head around. How can Case Law trump the Constitution, when the Constitution, as the Supreme Law of the Land, should ALWAYS trump any law that violates the Constitution?
To paraphrase Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803), where Chief Justice John Marshall wrote “…an act of the legislature, repugnant to the constitution, is void,” I contend that “… an act of the judicial, repugnant to the constitution, is void.”
I am not a fan of Donald Trump, but I do not hate him either. I find him brutish, unintelligent and offensive at times. He was not even close to being our best president, but he was far better at the job than our current president. I do not defend him for any of his actions, but I will defend to my death his right to say whatever he wants to say, up to the point of libel or slander, as that is the point that his right to free speech crosses over to rub the rights of others.
I am not a judge. I am not even a lawyer. But I know that if Donald Trump is given enough rope, he’ll probably hang himself with it. Let him say what he will, and he will talk himself into civil case for slander, or even possibly publicly admit to actual wrongdoing. But “poison the proceedings,” I hardly think so.
Trump said in a post on his social media website, Truth Social, “WILL APPEAL THE GAG ORDER RULING. WITCH HUNT!”