hokiewolf said:
Civilized said:
Oldsouljer said:
I should simplify and clarify my point that the main American principle I refer to is that even the citizens we detest and despise the most, we should defend their rights to the utmost, to further ensure that our own rights remain inviolate. Once someone becomes marginalized and deemed an "exception", those with evil intent will push the bounds to go after the rest of us.
I'm all for defending the rights of the despised.
But we have a practical legal issue at hand, which is the interplay of a defendant's right to free speech; language by the defendant that has the capacity to intimidate witnesses and taint their testimony; and past history by the defendant of using inflammatory speech to incite a violent riot and then sitting on his hands for hours while the US Capitol was attacked.
There is zero legal precedent for this. We are in completely uncharted territory.
typically gag orders are used to help defend the accused, I don't know any other time where they were used to silence the accused. That's troubling to me.
Witness intimidation should trouble you too, no? And protecting the jury trial process also?
It's not an arbitrary silencing of the accused. It's a limited order in direct response to Trump's past and present public attacks.
I understand the civil libertarian take on this but believe it's not as simple as unquestioned deference to the First Amendment no matter the capacity of the defendant's speech to intimidate witnesses and taint the trial process.
How are competing First Amendment infringements and steps to protect witnesses, the court, and the trial process weighed?
There should be a heavy burden on the court to demonstrate need (potentially met by Trump's past and present conduct) and discretion (potentially met by the limited nature of the gag).
This will be fascinating to watch play out legally given the stakes, visibility, and lack of past precedent.
