When the Framers drafted the First Amendment, they did so in absolutist terms to allow no abridgment of the freedom of expression. The language was unprecedented and unqualified. While the courts have read various exceptions into that language, it was a recognition that censorship and speech criminalization have always been an impulse of those in power. Moreover, it can create an insatiable appetite where limiting speech in one area leads to demands in other areas. Democratic leaders have shown that tendency in recent years with an expanding anti-free speech agenda, but no one more embodies this danger than Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker.
Recently, a federal judge correctly ruled that a new Illinois law targeting pro-life centers is “painfully and blatantly a violation of the First Amendment.” The Deceptive Practices of Limited Services Pregnancy Centers Act would have allowed the state to crackdown on centers for what it considers “deceptive tactics” to influence pregnant women to have their babies. While celebrated by many on the left as a model for the nation, it would have gutted free speech protections and created a type of truth police.
The most concerning statement came from Pritzker himself. In a CNN interview, Pritzker defended the denial of free speech to pro-life advocates by citing the prosecution of former president Donald Trump. Some of us have objected to the second federal indictment of Trump as an attack on the First Amendment. Pritzker, however, appears to view it as a virtual invitation to do the same.
Pritzker declared that the law is “just like the case against President Trump. You have a right to free speech, but you don’t have a right to lie.” In his mind, it is that simple.
It is not, of course. Lies are generally protected under the Constitution.
In 2012, in the United States v. Alvarez decision, the Supreme Court held 6-3 that it is unconstitutional to criminalize lies in a case involving a politician who lied about military decorations.
Notably, the Court’s warning about criminalizing false or misleading speech fits the Illinois law and Pritzker to a tee. The Court said that such laws “would give government a broad censorial power unprecedented in this Court’s cases or in our constitutional tradition. The mere potential for the exercise of that power casts a chill, a chill the First Amendment cannot permit if free speech, thought, and discourse are to remain a foundation of our freedom.”
Pritzker, however, insists that the law is not just “constitutional . .. legal” but noble. He explained that they are just acting to prevent pro-lifers from saying “something that’s false.”
He added: “Remember what they’re doing, they’re putting their crisis pregnancy centers next door to abortion rights centers, and they’re directing people to go in their front door or telling them things that aren’t true often. And when that’s the case, they ought to be held liable.”
Clearly, there is no law against locating a pro-life center near an abortion center (or the inverse). Yet, Pritzker feels empowered by the prosecution of Trump over his speech: “it’s just like the case against President Trump. You have a right to free speech, but you don’t have a right to lie. You don’t have a right to use those lies to push people into situations in which they, frankly, are breaking the law or where they are unaware of what their full rights are. So, we need to make sure that people know what their rights are.”
Let that sink in a moment. Under Pritzker’s view of the First Amendment, the government can prosecute anyone who is lying and “push people into situations in which they. . . are unaware of what their full rights are.” The way to “make sure that people know what their rights are” is to prosecute lies.
In one interview, Pritzker made the case for the Trump legal team in showing how the demands for greater and greater speech curtailment can expand in real time. He is correct that, if Trump can be prosecuted for false political statements, other citizens can be prosecuted for lying on other subjects. Much of political speech concerns the rights shared by all of us. Whether it is a comment on elections, police brutality or gender identity, it can be treated as contributing to doubts of people “of what their full rights are.” The government would then become a truth police, protecting citizens from dangerous or disinforming opinions.
In the federal case, Smith acknowledges that the Constitution protects false statements (which Pritzker does not in the interview). However, he simply argues that Trump knew they were false because many people told him so. The fact that other lawyers argued that he could challenge the election is simply dismissed as disinformation. While Smith cites efforts to challenge the certification of the election and submit an alternative slate of electors, it all comes down to whether Trump believed that he might have had a case or could have changed the result of the election. Millions continue to hold that view. I do not. However, are they all spreading a criminal lie by voicing it or confusing others on their rights?
Justice Louis Brandeis once warned that “The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding.” Gov. JB Pritzker is one of those men and he is now offering to police the truth if only you will allow him.
Dems are Communists.
Prove me wrong
The entire communistic American welfare state is unconstitutional including, but not limited to, matriculation affirmative action, grade-inflation affirmative action, employment affirmative action, quotas, welfare, food stamps, minimum wage, rent control, social services, forced busing, public housing, utility subsidies, WIC, SNAP, TANF, HAMP, HARP, TARP, HHS, HUD, EPA, Agriculture, Commerce, Education, Labor, Energy, Obamacare, Social Security, Social Security Disability, Social Security Supplemental Income, Medicare, Medicaid, “Fair Housing” laws, “Non-Discrimination” laws, etc.
Article 1, Section 8, provides Congress the power to tax ONLY for “…general (all, the whole) Welfare…,” omitting and, thereby, excluding any power to tax for individual Welfare, specific Welfare, particular Welfare, favor or charity. The same article enumerates and provides Congress the power to regulate ONLY money, the “flow” of commerce, and land and naval Forces. Additionally, the 5th Amendment right to private property was initially qualified by the Framers and is, therefore, absolute, allowing no further qualification, and allowing ONLY the owner the power to “claim and exercise” dominion over private property.
Government exists, under the Constitution and Bill of Rights, to provide maximal freedom to individuals while government is severely limited and restricted to merely facilitating that maximal freedom of individuals through the provision of security and infrastructure only.
Karl Marx wrote the Communist Manifesto 59 years after the adoption of the Constitution because none of the principles of the Communist Manifesto were in the Constitution. Had the principles of the Communist Manifesto been in the Constitution, Karl Marx would have had no reason to write the Communist Manifesto. The principles of the Communist Manifesto were not in the Constitution then and the principles of the Communist Manifesto are not in the Constitution now.
Central Planning, Control of the Means of Production (i.e. unconstitutional regulation), Redistribution of Wealth and Social Engineering, the principles of communism, are unconstitutional.
Karl Marx’s motto: “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.”
The American thesis: “Freedom and Self-Reliance.”
Recently we have seen two scions of wealth make complete fools of themselves, Pritzker and Dan Goldman. These two buffoons are proof that we need to end legacy admissions to our colleges and universities. Imagine that Pritzker and Goldman took the seats of two deserving kids that didn’t have parents that gave millions to schools in order to get their moron kids into them.
Pritzker is the buffoon that let his family go on vacation while he locked his state down.
Pritzker is also the tyrant that will kill Illinois. Chicago is emptying due to crime and while the suburbs are fighting to remain safe he passed a no-bail law FOR THE ENTIRE STATE. IL will be done.
HullBobby,
I am watching the no-cash bail in IL like I am watching it in NYC.
This is where Democrats want to take the whole country. Prosecute the victims while defending the criminals.
Why doesn’t Woodward investigate Biden for abuses of power, if he’s so concerned about that sort of thing.
Campaigning while Trump shouldn’t be like driving while black.
Disputing elections while not being a Democrat is the new DWB.
There’s no problem with legally disputing elections while not a Democrat, as is made clear in the indictment.
The problem is with carrying out election-related crimes.
The problem is with carrying out election-related crimes.
You finally admit a crime had to be carried out
None were.
A jury will decide that, not you.
Pritzker puts the ham in hamfisted. Classic meat head.
Pritzker, an heir to the Hyatt fortune is a despicable human being who would gladly use his powers to limit the liberties and freedoms of the unwashed masses who he so clearly despises to achieve his progressive goals. He is the classic rich progressive who never suffers the consequences of his actions or policies, and would further damage the lives of countless others if he were ever to achieve more power than the post as governor of a failing state. This obese slob should be recycled and his huge carbon footprint eliminated from the planet’s biosphere.
The supreme irony of Democrats demanding lies become illegal. The ends justify the hypocrisy. If this actually works, what next? Gulag timeshares? I’m gobsmacked the Democrats still find a way to astonish me.
Harping on the Constitution is a waste of breath. The Woke despise the Constitution.
Biden has about 14 Pinocchios from the WH rag known as the Washington Post. He is a well-known congenital liar — even lies about the weather and his family. So where’s the Chicago governor now?
Bravo, Jonathan. The order from the federal judge is scathing, both on the law and Attorney General Kwame Raoul’s incompetent defense of it. Highlights here:https://wirepoints.org/scorching-court-opinion-posted-federal-judge-ridicules-stupid-illinois-abortion-misinformation-law-and-attorney-general-raoul-wirepoints/
JB says: “You have a right to free speech, but you don’t have a right to lie”
What JB does not say is that a FOIA request related to JB’s “The Deceptive Practices of Limited Services Pregnancy Centers Act” showed that no citizens had filed complaints to precipitate the legislation. So it appears the ‘fear’ addressed by the Act was ‘made-up’.
JB, what do we call statements that are ‘made-up’? We call them a “lie” big guy……
If you “don’t have a right to lie,” the Clintons would be in their second decade of jail time right now. Come to think of it, the country would all have been spared Russiagate, the bombing of Syria, Libya and Serbia, and the race/gender wars set off by Hillary’s “deplorable” comment and her hatred of Trump. Alas, we gave her free speech and are now paying the price of freedom. But no one said it comes free.
Gio, of course you are right regarding the Clintons, but you missed the “elephant” (or should I say donkey) in the room. Who has lied more than Joe Biden? HE lied back in his law school days 60 years ago, he lied in his run for president in 1988, he lied over and over again when he said he never spoke to Hunter about his business and now they are indicting someone for lying…Trump????
I read this daily for the edification it provides me. Thank you, Mr. Turley.
pritzker well meaning? You should have left out the last paragraph. pritzker, like all progressive clowns, is a petty tyrant.
Re: pritzker, like all progressive clowns, is a petty tyrant.” Petty tyrants are raised to high office by constituents of the same ilk.
Today, there is no longer any such thing as “truth” in the traditional sense. Rather, “truth” is whatever you can get people to believe. Any occasional resemblance of the definition of “truth” today to yesterday’s definition of “truth” is purely coincidental.
In today’s worlds of either politics or law — two worlds that are increasingly colliding (with appologies to Immanuel Velikovsky) — only a sucker believes that “truth” matters compared with a slick argument and a set of manipulated “facts.”
Today, there is no longer any such thing as “truth” . . .
Other than perhaps that statement. Today, truth has been replaced with the narrative. “Misinformation” is shorthand for “whatever undermines the narrative.”
I was brainwashed by the #PLEDGE. Carl Sagan, said: “ “One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we’ve been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle.“
The longer Sagan quote:
“One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we’ve been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We’re no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It’s simply too painful to acknowledge, even to ourselves, that we’ve been taken. Once you give a charlaton power over you, you almost never get it back.
“Finding the occasional straw of truth awash in a great ocean of confusion and bamboozle requires intelligence, vigilance, dedication, and courage. But if we don’t practice these tough habits of thought, we cannot hope to solve the truly serious problems that face us, and we risk becoming a nation of suckers, up for grabs by the next charlatan who comes along.”
The over 1 million people blacklisted by the federal government after 9/11 have no rights whatsoever – more than 20 years later and most are innocent. Maybe the court should take care of these bigger rights abuses first?
This will be the same illegal tactics used against some Trump supporters.
We must do away with the Patriot Act.
Pritzker is not well meaning but he is definitely without understanding.
While stupidity knows no bounds, JB Pritzker is not an outlier anymore in today’s “Amerika”. Thank you, Jonathan, for an excellent article.
American NAZIS and they vote for it.
The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding.” Gove. JB Pritzker is one of those men . . .
Pritzker is not well meaning. That quote (which you frequently trot out) may have applied in Justice Brandeis’ day, but the Left today is not at all well meaning and they understand exactly what they’re doing. Their instincts are always totalitarian.
That’s what I think about the GOP.
You may think that.
But it is the woke leftists in the Democrat party that put their totalitarian actions on gross display for all to see.
That’s what I think about the GOP.
So besides living in opposite world, and being a dip stick, what else are you?
Insults are such a mature response on your part. /s
I feel sorry for you that you have such difficulty accepting that people can legitimately have different opinions.
Yes, indeed, people can, and always will, have different “legitimate” opinions. That is a wide range. Outside that range people can, and always will, have opinions that are held in good faith, with some thin support (or no support). I would also consider those opinions “legitimate”. Still further outside even that range are opinions held by people who do not even believe in them themselves and express them only to cause as much doubt and chaos as possible. It is my opinion, having observed your work on this blog, that you belong in that outermost fringe.
Wiseoldlawyer,
Well said.
And you can have that opinion.
Doesn’t make it true.
Notice that I don’t insult you for having a different opinion than me about it.
“Notice that I don’t insult you . . .”
Naming a shyster a “shyster” is not an insult. It’s self-protection.
People can have different opinions, that’s true. It’s also true that people can show their own foolishness if their opinions are not based in any semblance of reality – but are, in fact, a reflection of the opposite of reality. Hence the term opposite world.
If that’s what you believe, then you’re the one living in opposite world.
Trump is the king of not being well-meaning and wanting to be authoritarian.
Trump has an obnoxious personality and is somewhat narcissistic. But as for “not being well-meaning,” the facts prove you wrong. He gave up millions in personal wealth – both in money spent and in opportunity costs – to try and put America back on the right track because he genuinely does love America in spite of his other faults. And he largely succeeded: energy dominance, low unemployment, low inflation, more America-friendly trade deals, making NATO allies pay their fair share, criminal justice reform, borders under control, stopping other countries (mainly China) from ripping us off, and the list goes on and on. It is a matter of fact, not opinion, that all those achievements have been reversed under the current regime, and that such reversal is harmful to America. So, no, I live in the real world, not in opposite world.
Trump is a malignant narcissist. He gets off on denigrating people, and he wishes that he could jail people who disagree with him. Name a single person he disagrees with by name but hasn’t insulted, other than family.
You believe he loves America. I don’t. Once again these are opinions, not facts.
You obviously hate Trump. I don’t fault you for that. But you are letting that hatred cloud your perception of reality. You have not provided a single example of someone who Trump tried to jail for “disagreeing with him.” If you could show that, you would have by now. Yet you stick to that line of yours. You show all the signs of suffering from TDS.
My perception of reality is just fine. How many times did Trump lead his audience in a “lock her up” chant? And he tried to get the DOJ to go after people he disliked, but the DOJ refused (e.g., Geoffrey Berman, who prosecuted Michael Cohen, wrote “Trump’s Justice Department kept demanding that I use my office to aid them politically, and I kept declining” — like John Kerry). As the indictment lays out, Trump tried to use the DOJ to stay in office. You simply ignore all of the evidence that’s contrary to what you want to believe and make false accusations about me before you’ve even waited to see what the evidence is.
He gets off on denigrating people.
So you’re against denigrating people. So am I. Are you equally upset about the high-level Democrats constantly denigrating half the nation? If we’re not bitter clingers, we’re deplorables, semi-fascists, ultra-MAGA extremists, and so on. Trump’s insults are targeted to individuals, but not the population as a whole. I don’t endorse Trump for doing that, I’d rather he not, I find it off-putting, but objectively speaking it’s not as bad as insulting half the nation simply because they are conservative.
If you’re not aware of Trump denigrating Democrats and liberals as groups, you’re not paying attention. Amazing that you think “Trump’s insults are targeted to individuals, but not the population as a whole.” And I think it’s at least as bad to target individuals as groups. He is loyal to no one, yet demands loyalty. Look at how he treats Pence now, when Pence was loyal throughout the 4 years they were in office. What was Pence’s sin? Obeying his oath to uphold the Constitution, and testifying truthfully before the Grand Jury.
He gets off on denigrating people
Name a person Trump has insulted, that did not first go after Trump.
If you step into the Trump arena, he is free to punch you in the nose. Don’t like it? Don’t step into the Arena.
Start with Judge Curiel and Judge Chutkan.
Trump is the king of . . . wanting to be authoritarian.
That right there proves you’re living in opposite world. The greatest threat to freedom is the administrative state, with all its overly-burdensome regulations. Trump’s main goal was to rein it in in service of greater freedom. He is the opposite of an authoritarian. That’s the truth, regardless if you’re too blind to see it.
Trump’s goal is to be a dictator who fires and/or jails everyone who opposes him.
Interesting, you didn’t refute a single thing I said above.
As for Trump firing people, that’s true, but it’s a necessary function of a good manager. It’s no coincidence he’s been successful in the competitive private sector, and in the public sector as well.
But jails people? I noticed you didn’t provide any examples. If you’re thinking of Hillary, that’s a bad example: (1) he never sought to prosecute her when he was in a position to do so, and (2) any rhetoric you have in mind was not based on her “disagreeing” with him but on her obvious criminal actions in destroying evidence.
The “jailing” part is exactly what his enemies are doing to him. Again . . . you show all the hallmarks of living in opposite world.
OldManFromKS,
A well said series of comments.
Good list of facts brought to the table.
Thanks Upstate. Notice how in the end he throws out bombastic statements with no support and then leaves the room.
But he did seek to prosecute her.
“President Trump told the White House counsel in the spring that he wanted to order the Justice Department to prosecute two of his political adversaries: his 2016 challenger, Hillary Clinton, and the former F.B.I. director James B. Comey, according to two people familiar with the conversation.
“The lawyer, Donald F. McGahn II, rebuffed the president, saying that he had no authority to order a prosecution. Mr. McGahn said that while he could request an investigation, that too could prompt accusations of abuse of power. To underscore his point, Mr. McGahn had White House lawyers write a memo for Mr. Trump warning that if he asked law enforcement to investigate his rivals, he could face a range of consequences, including possible impeachment.”
https://web.archive.org/web/20181120220453/https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/20/us/politics/president-trump-justice-department.html
Apparently you just didn’t know about it.
Mr. McGahn said that while he could request an investigation, that too could prompt accusations of abuse of power.
The President of the United States is the Chief Law Enforcement Officer in the United States. While you are free to call it abuse of power,(lying is not a crime) it does not violate the Constitution. Remember when Obama and Biden was getting regular in person updates on the phony Russia investigation? Didn’t think you would. But nobody said it was abuse of plenary power.
An insult is all a troll comment is worth
. . . to influence pregnant women to have their babies.
Two things liberals are deathly afraid of: speech and babies. Their fever nightmares are filled with people speaking, and babies cooing.
OldManFromKS,
The upside to woke leftists fear of babies is eventually they will breed themselves out of existence.
Upstate – that might explain why they favor open borders. As Hispanics move from Dem to GOP they may have second thoughts.
My theory is, libs awaken from a nightmare, then try to convince everyone, it really happened. The great white dope said: “AMERICA’S A NATION THAT CAN BE DEFINED IN A SINGLE WORD:
AWDSMFAF00THIMAAAFOOTAFOOTWHSCUSEME.”