The D.C. Circuit Court Revealed the Huge Flaw in Trump’s Gag Order Claim (slate.com)

submitted 11 months ago by spaceghoti@lemmy.one to c/politics@lemmy.world

5 comments fedilink hide all child comments

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.

top 5 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[-] Telorand@reddthat.com 33 points 11 months ago

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.

[-] EatYouWell@lemmy.world 13 points 11 months ago

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.

[-] quindraco@lemm.ee 5 points 11 months ago

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.

[-] grabyourmotherskeys@lemmy.world 8 points 11 months ago

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.

[-] Froyn@kbin.social 8 points 11 months ago

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.

this post was submitted on 21 Nov 2023

49 points (96.2% liked)

politics

19082 readers

3309 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

• Register To Vote

• Citizenship Resource Center

• Congressional Awards Program

• Federal Government Agencies

• Library of Congress Legislative Resources

• The White House

• U.S. House of Representatives

• U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

• News