Trump should be entitled to express his opinion. What kind of country do we live in if you can't criticize the prosecutor and people who accuse you?
36-40, M
Top | Newest First | Oldest First
Aidankenny23 · 41-45, M
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment
Justice4All · 36-40, M
@Northwest Mentioning someone's name and criticizing them isn't harassment. Harassment would be emailing, calling, confronting the person in public or via their social media accounts.
ElwoodBlues · M
@Justice4All [quote] Harassment would be emailing, calling, confronting the person in public or via their social media accounts.[/quote] Or inciting your millions of followers to do so.
BTW, the ACLU objects to the breadth of the gag order, not its existence.
BTW, the ACLU objects to the breadth of the gag order, not its existence.
Northwest · M
[quote]Mentioning someone's name and criticizing them isn't harassment. Harassment would be emailing, calling, confronting the person in public or via their social media accounts.[/quote]@Justice4All
Did you just wake up from a coma, or did you decide to pick a single moment in time, forsaking the entire history of Trump's judicial harassment?
Did you just wake up from a coma, or did you decide to pick a single moment in time, forsaking the entire history of Trump's judicial harassment?
AlchemyFox · 36-40, F
trollslayer · 46-50, M
Justice4All · 36-40, M
@BritishFailedAesthetic From the ACLU:
While no modern-day President has done more damage to civil liberties than President Trump, the matter of the gag order issued against him isn’t really about him – it's about free speech. [b]The ACLU – which filed 400 legal actions against President Trump’s administration[/b] – has defended free speech for over a century. And gag orders are one of the most troubling types of restrictions to free speech as protected by the First Amendment because they make speech immediately punishable by fine or jail.
Here are five reasons the gag order is a concern to ACLU.
1) The gag order is too vague in its ban on “targeting” the prosecutor (Special Counsel), potential witnesses, and the “substance of their testimony” because it could be read to encompass mere identification of people or issues, whether or not such “targeting” is threatening or causes any harm.
2) The gag order is too broad, as it covers the Special Counsel (who is a public official) and the “substance” of any witnesses’ testimony, which will almost certainly include issues that are highly relevant to the 2024 presidential campaign.
3)The public has a right to hear speech from the defendant, especially as it affects our ability to hold fair and free elections.
4) The First Amendment provides no license to engage in unlawful speech, including incitement, threats, or solicitation of criminal activity. Such speech is already punishable.
5) However, the gag order currently in place is insufficiently justified since it has not shown a serious threat that the speech it prohibits will threaten the administration of justice.
While no modern-day President has done more damage to civil liberties than President Trump, the matter of the gag order issued against him isn’t really about him – it's about free speech. [b]The ACLU – which filed 400 legal actions against President Trump’s administration[/b] – has defended free speech for over a century. And gag orders are one of the most troubling types of restrictions to free speech as protected by the First Amendment because they make speech immediately punishable by fine or jail.
Here are five reasons the gag order is a concern to ACLU.
1) The gag order is too vague in its ban on “targeting” the prosecutor (Special Counsel), potential witnesses, and the “substance of their testimony” because it could be read to encompass mere identification of people or issues, whether or not such “targeting” is threatening or causes any harm.
2) The gag order is too broad, as it covers the Special Counsel (who is a public official) and the “substance” of any witnesses’ testimony, which will almost certainly include issues that are highly relevant to the 2024 presidential campaign.
3)The public has a right to hear speech from the defendant, especially as it affects our ability to hold fair and free elections.
4) The First Amendment provides no license to engage in unlawful speech, including incitement, threats, or solicitation of criminal activity. Such speech is already punishable.
5) However, the gag order currently in place is insufficiently justified since it has not shown a serious threat that the speech it prohibits will threaten the administration of justice.
Roundandroundwego · 61-69