Kathianne
10-26-2023, 05:54 PM
Again, folks have the right to speak. Often that helps people make up their minds in better ways. More speech, not less.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/a-defense-of-trump-from-the-aclu
A defense of Trump — from the ACLUby Byron York, Chief Political Correspondent
October 25, 2023 05:10 PM
Latest
By: Jack Birle
A DEFENSE OF TRUMP — FROM THE ACLU. Millions of people support former President Donald Trump. They come from all walks of life. But one place it is hard to find Trump defenders is in the upper reaches of the legal establishment.
Now, though, a certified part of that establishment, the American Civil Liberties Union, has filed a brief on behalf of Trump in special counsel Jack Smith's Jan. 6 case against the former president. On Wednesday, ACLU lawyers argued against the gag order Judge Tanya Chutkan imposed on Trump. Their argument is a solid defense of First Amendment rights — even for a former president hated by so many on the Left.
Chutkan's order bars Trump from "making any public statements, or directing others to make any public statements, that target (1) the special counsel prosecuting this case or his staff; (2) defense counsel or their staff; (3) any of this court's staff or other supporting personnel; or (4) any reasonably foreseeable witness or the substance of their testimony." At the Trump defense's request, Chutkan last week paused her order so that both sides could submit arguments over the matter.
Subscribe today to the Washington Examiner magazine that will keep you up to date with what's going on in Washington. SUBSCRIBE NOW: Just $1.00 an issue!
Now, the ACLU said the order is so broad that it violates Trump's, and the public's, constitutional rights.
The first problem is the word "target," which the ACLU said is "unconstitutionally vague." "The entire order hinges on the meaning of the word 'target,'" the brief said. "But that meaning is ambiguous, and fails to provide the fair warning that the Constitution demands, especially when, as here, it concerns a prior restraint on speech." Looking at the text of Chutkan's order, the ACLU said Trump "cannot possibly know what he is permitted to say, and what he is not."
"In the context of the order, 'target' could mean something as innocuous as 'name' or 'identify,' or something much more violent," the ACLU continued. "One could target another with respectful but vigorous political advocacy, or target them for physical violence or death." Chutkan's order does not give any additional context to indicate what the judge means. She did not, the ACLU said, "define 'target' to be narrowly limited to its most menacing implications," nor did she give examples of what she means.
The ACLU also noted that the gag order forbids Trump from "target[ing]" the "substance" of the "testimony" of "any reasonably foreseeable witness." Well, how is he supposed to know that? And what sort of speech would that ban? "Witness testimony in this case will concern the events of January 6, 2021, the results of the 2020 presidential election, and defendant's own conduct in relation to both," the brief said. "These topics are key points in the ongoing 2024 presidential campaign. Barring any discussion of these entire topics by the defendant is unconstitutionally overbroad." That is especially true since Jan. 6 and the 2020 election are subjects of almost nonstop public discussion. "Where so many are already saying so much about the topic, it seems unlikely that silencing the defendant is justified," the ACLU said.
And what about Chutkan's order barring Trump from "target[ing]" special counsel Jack Smith? The special counsel is a public official, the brief noted, conducting matters of great public interest. "Attempts to gag speech that addresses how the special counsel is conducting his work, on the grounds of ensuring the proper and impartial administration of justice, unduly undermine public discussion on matters of public concern that is at the heart of what the First Amendment protects." The ACLU recommended that the judge at least exempt public officials like Smith from the gag order.
Yes, courts have the authority to protect the judicial process and ensure a fair trial. But Trump, like all other Americans, enjoys far-reaching freedom of speech. "Some courts have concluded that the First Amendment applies with full force to restrictions on the speech of participants in the judicial process," the ACLU brief noted. Other decisions have allowed more restrictions on a defendant's freedom of speech. In this case, the ACLU argued, Trump deserves the full protection of the First Amendment. "The obvious and unprecedented public interest in this prosecution, as well as the widespread political speech that it has generated and will continue to generate, only underscores the need to apply the most stringent First Amendment standard to a restraint on a defendant's speech rights," the ACLU said.
The ACLU's final objection, after saying the order is too vague and too broad, is that it is just not necessary. "This case is already one of the most talked-about trials of all time," the brief said. "There may never have been a better-known criminal case in American history, or a better-known defendant. With that in mind, to the extent that the Court's order seeks to prevent future statements from affecting the impartiality of the potential jury pool, the order seems unlikely to make much of a difference. Where, as here, an order restricts a citizen's ability to speak out on matters of public concern, in the midst of an election campaign in which his words may inform the result of the presidential election, more is required than a generalized concern about further publicity about what is already one of the most public trials in the history of our nation."
Don't think the ACLU has suddenly decided it likes Trump. The brief begins with boilerplate criticism of the former president, writing, "Much that he has said has been patently false and has caused great harm to countless individuals, as well as to the Republican itself." But the First Amendment applies to Trump just like it does to every other American, and the ACLU has become a lone establishment voice to uphold that principle.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/a-defense-of-trump-from-the-aclu
A defense of Trump — from the ACLUby Byron York, Chief Political Correspondent
October 25, 2023 05:10 PM
Latest
By: Jack Birle
A DEFENSE OF TRUMP — FROM THE ACLU. Millions of people support former President Donald Trump. They come from all walks of life. But one place it is hard to find Trump defenders is in the upper reaches of the legal establishment.
Now, though, a certified part of that establishment, the American Civil Liberties Union, has filed a brief on behalf of Trump in special counsel Jack Smith's Jan. 6 case against the former president. On Wednesday, ACLU lawyers argued against the gag order Judge Tanya Chutkan imposed on Trump. Their argument is a solid defense of First Amendment rights — even for a former president hated by so many on the Left.
Chutkan's order bars Trump from "making any public statements, or directing others to make any public statements, that target (1) the special counsel prosecuting this case or his staff; (2) defense counsel or their staff; (3) any of this court's staff or other supporting personnel; or (4) any reasonably foreseeable witness or the substance of their testimony." At the Trump defense's request, Chutkan last week paused her order so that both sides could submit arguments over the matter.
Subscribe today to the Washington Examiner magazine that will keep you up to date with what's going on in Washington. SUBSCRIBE NOW: Just $1.00 an issue!
Now, the ACLU said the order is so broad that it violates Trump's, and the public's, constitutional rights.
The first problem is the word "target," which the ACLU said is "unconstitutionally vague." "The entire order hinges on the meaning of the word 'target,'" the brief said. "But that meaning is ambiguous, and fails to provide the fair warning that the Constitution demands, especially when, as here, it concerns a prior restraint on speech." Looking at the text of Chutkan's order, the ACLU said Trump "cannot possibly know what he is permitted to say, and what he is not."
"In the context of the order, 'target' could mean something as innocuous as 'name' or 'identify,' or something much more violent," the ACLU continued. "One could target another with respectful but vigorous political advocacy, or target them for physical violence or death." Chutkan's order does not give any additional context to indicate what the judge means. She did not, the ACLU said, "define 'target' to be narrowly limited to its most menacing implications," nor did she give examples of what she means.
The ACLU also noted that the gag order forbids Trump from "target[ing]" the "substance" of the "testimony" of "any reasonably foreseeable witness." Well, how is he supposed to know that? And what sort of speech would that ban? "Witness testimony in this case will concern the events of January 6, 2021, the results of the 2020 presidential election, and defendant's own conduct in relation to both," the brief said. "These topics are key points in the ongoing 2024 presidential campaign. Barring any discussion of these entire topics by the defendant is unconstitutionally overbroad." That is especially true since Jan. 6 and the 2020 election are subjects of almost nonstop public discussion. "Where so many are already saying so much about the topic, it seems unlikely that silencing the defendant is justified," the ACLU said.
And what about Chutkan's order barring Trump from "target[ing]" special counsel Jack Smith? The special counsel is a public official, the brief noted, conducting matters of great public interest. "Attempts to gag speech that addresses how the special counsel is conducting his work, on the grounds of ensuring the proper and impartial administration of justice, unduly undermine public discussion on matters of public concern that is at the heart of what the First Amendment protects." The ACLU recommended that the judge at least exempt public officials like Smith from the gag order.
Yes, courts have the authority to protect the judicial process and ensure a fair trial. But Trump, like all other Americans, enjoys far-reaching freedom of speech. "Some courts have concluded that the First Amendment applies with full force to restrictions on the speech of participants in the judicial process," the ACLU brief noted. Other decisions have allowed more restrictions on a defendant's freedom of speech. In this case, the ACLU argued, Trump deserves the full protection of the First Amendment. "The obvious and unprecedented public interest in this prosecution, as well as the widespread political speech that it has generated and will continue to generate, only underscores the need to apply the most stringent First Amendment standard to a restraint on a defendant's speech rights," the ACLU said.
The ACLU's final objection, after saying the order is too vague and too broad, is that it is just not necessary. "This case is already one of the most talked-about trials of all time," the brief said. "There may never have been a better-known criminal case in American history, or a better-known defendant. With that in mind, to the extent that the Court's order seeks to prevent future statements from affecting the impartiality of the potential jury pool, the order seems unlikely to make much of a difference. Where, as here, an order restricts a citizen's ability to speak out on matters of public concern, in the midst of an election campaign in which his words may inform the result of the presidential election, more is required than a generalized concern about further publicity about what is already one of the most public trials in the history of our nation."
Don't think the ACLU has suddenly decided it likes Trump. The brief begins with boilerplate criticism of the former president, writing, "Much that he has said has been patently false and has caused great harm to countless individuals, as well as to the Republican itself." But the First Amendment applies to Trump just like it does to every other American, and the ACLU has become a lone establishment voice to uphold that principle.